Probably because it's not true.....
Probably because it's not true.....
I am sure it is true that the AMA is trying to increase the number of "healthy" people available for vaccine trials. Yes, a person would be able to opt out, but they need to know about the opt out in order to do that. It could be similar to the high school release of name to the military opt out form that you have to actively opt out of otherwise your child can be contacted by military recruiters. Or it could be like a jury summons but with an opt out is teeny tiny print somewhere hidden at the bottom looking official to scare enough people into thinking they have to do this for the good of the people.
Frankly, I think the US population won't fall for this one.
the ones who will are the ones most vulnerable - the recent immigrants, the new citizens, the ones brought up to believe doctors know everything, and that if the kid's not vaccinated, they can't go to school.
granted, it's a position statement but if the AMA has the confidence to actually put something like this out there, it seems to me they feel they have reasonable grounds to assume it could actually happen.
in a politicial environment where a congressman saying parents ought to be able to seek the death penalty for rebellious children (charles fuqua), dog-fighting should be illegal and you should be allowed to bring your kids (steve king), that animal torture should be allowed (steve king again), that a woman can't get pregnant in cases of "legitimate" rape (and therefore, if she did get pregnant, she must have been consenting on some level), that abortion to save the mother's life should not be allowed (being god's will and all), and where a girl's traumatic locker-room rape was dismissed in public with the comment "some girls rape easy" (roger rivard), do you wonder why the AMA thinks that position statement is worth even considering?
Here is the original source for the article the OP listed:
At this point in time, it really just reads as someone musing about how to solve the problem of too few people enrolling in clinical trials. It is not policy or anything.
Yeah. Good point….
all of the following is speculative:
As someone who sees strict school vaccine exemptions as very close to mandatory vaccination, I do not think mandatory (or some softer version of mandatory - exemptions, opt-outs) vaccine testing is all that far fetched.
I am not sure the public will go for it, though.
The public is fairly willing to accept what they see as tried and true vaccines for young children, and much more hesitant around newer vaccines/vaccines for adults. There are a number of obvious reasons why.
So… while I can see some very pro-vax gung-ho people thinking it is an OK idea, I cannot see the public really going for it (at least not initially).
There would also be serious logistical issues. How do they insist on participation in vaccine trials - link it to being able to work, not getting fines…what?
I suspect the tactic they will employ is exactly as they say: - trying to up the rates of voluntary enrolment in trials through public relations. Some of it will be good and ethical (dissemination of scientific information) and some of it will be manipulative (those who don't enrol in vax trials are selfish!)
I also think those who get new vaccines really are in a form of vaccine trials - they just don't see it as such.
HPV? We do not know how long the effectiveness lasts, we do not have a good handle on if there are more reactions to it than one would expect…yet people are still vaxxing their children for it!
They are going to go for public buy-in as opposed to mandatory vaccine trials - it is easier, ethically, and probably cheaper…..
heres all the references from the OP's article for people to look up facts about the article..
"Western pharmaceutical companies have seized on India over the past five years as a testing ground for drugs – making the most of a huge population and loose regulations which help dramatically cut research costs for lucrative products to be sold in the West.[...]The relationship is so exploitative that some believe it represents a new colonialism."
Many participants said in interviews that they agreed to take part simply because of the recommendation of their doctor. Does "informed consent" even apply to these people who are often uneducated and illiterate?