SB277: Dr. Dane Fliedner's Stance
Conflicted myself about SB277, I wanted to share an amazing doctor's stance on the subject.
"Many people over the course of the last few months have asked me (Dr. Dane Fliedner Raising Sages Integrative Pediatrics) what our position is on vaccines. As those of you who know me, I have really tried very hard to be a safe harbor for those who are nervous about the potential side effects of the vaccines on our kids. It has also been difficult as I know and love my conventional pediatric colleagues and understand completely that they have nothing but the best intentions for your children and see themselves as advocates for your kids against misinformation.
I also have sympathy for Public Health as I have a Master's Degree in Public Health and even (at one time) interviewed for the position of head of Maternal and Child Health for Orange County. Public health has always been the most underappreciated of all medical specialties and they are really trying to do right for your kids.
However, the current events have gone much further than I expected and I am saddened and surprised that things have progressed to this point. While I understand where the legislation is coming from, I do not believe that this is the solution. The thoughtful, educated and caring parents that I have met who are worried about vaccines have never once quoted Jenny McCarthy, Lancet articles and so forth. They are deeply concerned about the conflict of interest that exists between our nation's industry and the government bodies that are supposed to be separate from them. They worry knowing that the same sort of corruption that is rife within the food industry also exists between the Pharmaceutical agencies and the FDA and CDC. This is not conspiracy theory but well documented with lawsuits that have been lost by Merck etc for this very reason. This is, in the cliched sense, the fox watching the henhouse.
The one thing that I notice never gets mentioned is that the more educated and well to do a person is, the less likely they are to vaccinate their children. No one seems to speculate as to why. Is this simply privilege? Or perhaps they are intelligent and informed enough to besuspicious and ask questions, rather than blindly trusting the system.
If the conventional medical authorities want better uptake of vaccines, then perhaps they should do a better job of making them cleaner, greener and being sure to remove the conflicts of interest from the ACIP/CDC and FDA. What it boils down to is an erosion of trust. If the vaccines were completely without side effects and problems as the drumbeat of "safe and effective" has us believe, then why the need for legal immunity, why the need for a VAERS program, why the need for the Vaccine Compensation Fund (I pay a tax on every vaccine I buy that goes towards paying towards this fund). If a child has an serious adverse effect to a medicine as benign as Tylenol, even given the rarity, no doctor would question if this was possible. Why then do we suppose that a similar thing can't happen with a vaccine? Is it blasphemy to even consider such a thing? In which case, even if the event is rare, how can we force this upon our kids? How does this not violate the legal and ethical precedent of informed consent? A 1 in a million event is important to you if that 1 in a million is your child.
All of us want healthy, happy and thriving children. Instead of screaming and demonizing each other, why can we not instead acknowledge that some kids don't seem to do well with vaccines, and use our creativity, resources and collective wisdom to devise a way to detect those children before they receive a vaccine and avoid an adverse event? Is this too much to ask? Are we not better people than this?
That's our stance."
Dr. Dane is offering a workshop SB277: What it Means & How to Navigate at Granola Babies that is free to attend. Due to demand a second session will be available.