by Phyllis Schlafly
It isn't often that a governor vetoes a bill that was passed
unanimously by both Houses of the State Legislature. It reminds
us of the old saying of the mother, watching her son drill
for the first time with the troops:
"Everybody's out of step except my son Jim." This
time the one who is out of step is George, as in Gov. George
Ryan of Illinois. He vetoed Senate Bill 1304, entitled "An
Act Concerning Immunizations."
This bill would have provided that a person is ineligible
to serve on the Illinois Immunization Advisory
Committee if the person or his spouse is an officer, employee,
or agent of, or has any ownership
or other financial interest in a pharmaceutical company that
It also would have prohibited committee members or their
spouses from soliciting or accepting anything of value or
any other economic benefit from a pharmaceutical company that
manufacturers or produces vaccines unless it is offered and
available generally to licensed physicians or the public.
That sounds like an excellent rule and we wonder why it hasn't
always been the law. Those who officially advise government
agencies whether or not to force Americans to submit to vaccines
should not be on the payroll of the corporations that profit
from the government mandates.
Ryan's veto message states that "Senate Bill 1304 would
severely limit the number
of pediatric disease specialists and pediatric physicians
in general, who would be eligible to serve on the Immunization
This amazing statement indicates that it's difficult to find
anyone to advise making vaccines mandatory other
than those who are paid in some way by the corporations selling
This conflict of interest
was confirmed by an emotional outburst against S.1304 from
one of the members of the Illinois Immunization Advisory Committee
at its meeting on July 12, 2001.
"No infectious disease specialist will be able to
serve on this committee! We all
take money from pharmaceutical companies."
Ryan's veto message acknowledged that Illinois depends on
vaccine company contractors for its vaccine policy-making.
Here is what Ryan wrote:
"Many physicians with expertise in the field of immunizations
and infectious disease have contractual relationships with
pharmaceutical companies with regards to speaking engagements.
Also, many medical schools and academic centers employ infectious
disease specialists that perform research funded by the
So that's how the racket works! "Experts" who are
being paid by the vaccine manufacturers have an official pipeline
through which they "advise" the state government
authorities to mandate vaccines.
This incestuous relationship between
the pharmaceuticals and governmental bodies is not unique
A hearing before the U.S. House Committee on Government
Reform on June 14, 2000, produced evidence that similar conflicts
of interest are common practice for the federal advisory committees:
the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory
Committee and the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization
Most children entering public school today have been forced
to take up to 33 immunizations and more and more vaccines
are in line for government mandates despite widespread controversy
over their efficacy and their side effects.
The hepatitis B vaccine is widely
administered to newborns while still in the hospital, even
though there is no scientific evidence to justify it before
the age when the child is subject to risk factors, such as
sexual promiscuity or sharing dirty needles.
Hepatitis B immunizations have been associated with 53 deaths
and 828 serious injuries, but the yearly incidence of the
hepatitis B disease itself is only 191 among the 38 million
children younger than 10, according to a letter recently published
in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Furthermore, the Asian Liver Center at Stanford University
recently reported that more than half of the total hepatitis
B cases in the United States are among Asian-Americans. The
rate is 70 times greater for Asians than for whites or Hispanics,
and 14 times greater than for blacks.
Another letter in JAMA described the benefits to newborn
hepatitis B immunization:
(1) It is too confusing to just vaccinate those who need
(2) there are some (very rare) cases of young kids at risk;
(3) it gets all the kids on the vaccine schedule right away;
(4) it is easier to get to babies than adolescents.
You don't need to be an "expert" to understand
that those are mighty poor reasons to vaccinate all newborns.
It looks like the manufacturers have figured out that they
can't make big money selling their hepatitis B vaccine only
to those at risk for the disease, so they have managed to
get the vaccine administered routinely to all newborns. Vaccine
advisory committees should not be beholden to the drug makers.
Forum September 5, 2001