AN INCONSISTENT VACCINE POLICY
The Food and Drug Administration approved the new vaccine for use in girls who have reached nine years of age, and therein lies the point of the story. As Mr. Olmsted writes, “the decision to wait till the cusp of adolescence to give the shot seems sensible ⎯ and drives home the contrary approach that the CDC has taken with the hepatitis B vaccination mandated for every newborn child.”
Once again, Mr. Olmsted hits the bull’s eye.
If one accepts the need for a vaccine against HPV, there certainly seems to be no pressing reason to use it on children at an age they will not be involved in sexual activity. Likewise, Hep-B is spread primarily through unprotected sex and intravenous drug use. Yet the powers that be seem to believe it’s a good idea to inoculate every single child on day one, regardless of whether their parents have tested positive for the Hep-B virus.
Many observers and researchers believe a rapid increase in the prevalence of autism is noticeable around the time the Hep-B vaccine was introduced onto the schedule. Had we known then what I know now, my wife and I would not have allowed our infant son to receive the thimerosal-containing Hep-B vaccine in his first few hours of life. We would have gladly agreed to keep him away from unprotected sex and IV-drug use for a few years.
Even now when the Hep-B vaccine contains only “trace” amounts of thimerosal, is it really a good idea to inject any vaccine into a child whose immune system is not yet developed? Moreover, if we assume for the sake of discussion that thimerosal and vaccines have nothing whatsoever to do with autism, is there any good reason to risk a possible adverse reaction from a vaccine that isn’t necessary so early in life? Why do we need to immediately vaccinate against a risk a child will not encounter for a decade or more? Is it good sense, or is it politics and economics?