It's understandable to some extent. there are already numbers of
parents fearful of the side effects of vaccinations on their
children, despite the evidence that not vaccinating is a far greater
risk. It achieves the level of a cultish belief. While a parent may
feel that they have a right to refuse, if the level drops below a
certain threshold we will see epidemics of nasty diseases again.
Consequently we have a dilemma for governments in that while they
would prefer to protect the rights of people to refuse, there are
also the rights of the child to consider and the simple utilitarian
duty to maximise the 'greatest good.' It's a nasty problem and so
they will try to discourage anything that paints vaccination in a bad
light, even to this point.
I very much doubt that any action against Lilley could succeed,
beyond spreading unreasonable fears in the community.
AndrewF
On 24/06/2005, at 10:15 PM, John Hermanson wrote:
> What's really maddening is that the new Homeland Security bill had
> a bill
> snuck into it that prevents parents from suing Lilly (major
> manufacturer of
> childhood inoculations) for (possibly causing) autism in their
> children.
> For years scientist have know (as well as the FDA) that mercury
> levels in
> these shots (preservative : thimerosol) was 87X the level
> considered safe by
> the FDA.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|