In the matter of the proposed vaccine rule changes, an administrative law judge has determined that the proposal recommending that Minnesota children receive yet more vaccines and at even earlier ages is somehow reasonable and necessary. Read the judge’s report HERE. This ruling was issued despite the fact that vaccine safety advocates showed, among other things:
• There are more confirmed reports of people being injured or killed following receipt of the VACCINE than cases of the actual disease itself for Hepatitis A and Hepatitis B. How on earth could giving these vaccines at an even more vulnerable age be remotely “reasonable” or “necessary”?
• Both Hepatitis A and Hepatitis B are extremely rare in Minnesota babies
• Day care providers, for whom Hepatitis A is far more dangerous, are not required to get the Hepatitis A vaccine, which essentially puts the burden to protect adults on fragile infants who may already be over-vaccinated. Is this truly “reasonable”?
• The 2013 Institute of Medicine report cited as “proof” of vaccine safety by rule change supporters was shown to contain blatant errors, was hardly “comprehensive” as reported, and likely contained selection bias in the few studies the IOM did choose to include in the report.
• Rates of Meningitis, both vaccine strains and non-vaccine strains, are actually DECREASING in the age range the new vaccines are recommended for. Plus, Minnesota has had no reported cases of Meningitis in children ages 11-16 that could possibly have been prevented by a vaccine since 2007. How then could recommending this potentially dangerous vaccine for every Minnesota 7th grader be deemed “necessary”?