Running Header: LITERATURE REVIEW

Literature Review
Kortney Applegate
The University of Texas at El Paso
Paul Vierra

LITERATURE REVIEW

2
Abstract

Is it legal for the government to take your children from you for not vaccinating? What
does UTEP do to protect the students? Are vaccines bringing harm and causing damage to
otherwise healthy children? In this work these questions will be explored. There will be articles
from The Harvard Law Review, as well as, numerous scholarly journals. There will be the
review from numerous authors stating their claim and giving opposing views.

LITERATURE REVIEW

3
Introduction

In 1796 the first immunizations created by Edward Jenner were introduced to prevent the
spread of small pox. Jenner used cowpox material to create an immunity to small pox. The
industrial revolution launches diseases are running rampant. People are no longer working only
on farms. Production factories are cropping up and more people are working in close proximity
to one another. As a result, immunizations became necessary to protect people from quickly
spreading Illnesses. Immunizations started with live viruses and over the years developed into
synthetic viruses injected into the body of infants, children and adults.
As medical technology develops so do the advances in the area of immunizations. These
developments also caused some ethical dilemmas. For example:

Is using aborted fetal matter, aluminum and mercury effecting childrens brains
and health function?

Does a parent have the (legal) right to refuse to immunize their children?

Does the government have a legal, ethical or moral right to take custody of said
children when not vaccinated and then prosecute the parents?

Who is liable when someone shedding a live virus exposes and/or infects the
immunosuppressed in a public forum such as UTEP?

Is using aborted fetal matter, aluminum and mercury effecting

childrens brains and health function?

To some extent any time a foreign substance is injected into a human body the body will
have some sort of reaction, whether it be negligible or extreme. Gerber and Offit state that neither
thimerosal nor MMR vaccines were found to cause autism in at least twenty different studies and that

LITERATURE REVIEW

there is no substantial data linking the Measles- Mumps- Rubella (MMR) vaccines and the rise in
autism diagnosis; even though symptoms can present themselves even one month or more after receiving
the MMR vaccine. The authors also stated that, a child receiving multiple vaccinations at one time, will
not overwhelm a childs immune system. This was ascertained by the vast majority of studies performed
on a prominent portion of the population. The studies have a level of statistical information resilient
enough to deflect any possible associations; as these studies were not only performed in the United States,
but in several other countries as well. The studies performed were conducted by epidemiologists who
study the patterns, as well as, the causes and effects of disease in populations. Multiple authors stated that
researches also relied largely on statistical methods to prove these possible links to be false (Gerber,
2009).
According to the Center for
Disease and Control the ingredients for the
MMR vaccine do not cause any adverse
effects because there is not enough of each
additive to cause any harm. According to
the data and statistics taken from the CDC
website the number of deaths due to
Measles was reduced dramatically after
the creation of the MMR vaccine. Figure 1
shows the data used to prove the dramatic decrease in deaths due to measles after the inception of the
vaccine. The CDC graph shows that from 1912 to 1974 measles were just short of eradicated as a result of
mandatory vaccinations (CDC, August 2015). CDC statistics also state that aluminum has been an
ingredient within vaccinations since the 1930s. The purpose of adding the aluminum is to strengthen the
immunity of the vaccines within the body.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Barry et al. hold an opposing view on the effects of the vaccines. Barry et al determined
that such studies have provided false and misleading information and support their claim by
providing documentation from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as well as,
legally taped conversations between the lead scientist conducting the study, Dr. William W.
Thompson, and the CEO of the CDC (Barry, 2015).
Dr. Thompson, a senior scientist and whistle blower at the CDC, was ordered to falsify
data to fit the claim that the vaccine causes no harm. Kirby supports Kevin Barrys claim stating
the government is making every effort to hide the results for fear of parents refusing to vaccinate
until a safer variation is presented (Kirby, 2005).
Sandy Reider supports Barry et al and Kirbys claim. Reider states that there is a time and
place for vaccines however, a healthy child should not be subjected to a multitude of
vaccinations that have known side effects which can be seriously harmful. Barry et al, Kirby, and
Reider all concur that the MMR vaccine has serious side effects on infants and children and that
an alternative option needs to be presented for healthy children receiving immunizations.
However, Reider does believe that there is a time and place for vaccines. In the end she is asking
the question, why should a healthy child be subjected to so many vaccinations that are known to
cause serious and even deadly side effects? It has become very difficult to find the truth about
vaccinations because there is so much propaganda not only by the media, but by others trying to
get their viewpoint across. Due to the relationship with the media and the political ties
pharmaceutical companies have with the government, it is very difficult to ascertain what the
truth actually is. Reider also states that parents need to be educated on the side effects of these
vaccinations and the potential for serious bodily harm or death, in some cases. Very rarely do
doctors give the parents of a child being immunized the package insert stating what is in the

LITERATURE REVIEW

vaccine and what the side effects are. While at the same time, she also states the absurdity of
anti vax people getting their information solely from an iconic figure such as Jenny McCarthy.
Social media is helping both sides to pass their information to as many people as possible, the
down side is that neither side gives the reader an unbiased opinion. The author, then goes on to
explain that a natural immunity is not that same as a vaccine induced immunity. When you
become ill with a virus such as the chickenpox you develop a natural immunity to it. Whereas,
with vaccine induced immunity, one is required to get a booster every so many years to continue
the existing immunity (Reider, 2014).
Does a parent have the (legal) right to refuse to immunize their children?
Does a parent have the (legal) right to refuse to immunize their children? This an
interesting legal and moral question. In the case of Jacobsen vs Massachusetts (1905) the
Supreme court ruled that Compulsory vaccination laws are constitutional if they are necessary
for the public health or public safety. However, with medical advancements much has changed
and in January 2016, the state of California passed the most rigid vaccine laws in the country.
This new law has eliminated a parents ability to attain a religious or philosophical exemption to
any mandatory immunizations.
The Harvard Law Review Association states that there is a need for there to be laws to
differentiate between what is a medically necessary vaccine and a practically necessary vaccine.
Medically necessary vaccines are vaccines are necessary to protect against known viable and
deadly diseases. Practically necessary vaccines are vaccines that are not required to protect you
from a deadly disease, but as an alternative, an example of a practical vaccines is Human
Papillomavirus vaccines. This is an alternative vaccine and is not required, however is an

LITERATURE REVIEW

option. According to scientists there are a large quantity of vaccines in the works and will be
prepared for distribution in the near future. The authors stated that because of this there needs to
be rules and regulations set in place as to what the government can and cannot tell you to be
inoculated against (Harvard Law Review, 2008).
Is the university liable if an immunosuppressed student contracts
one of the various live viruses from a carrier?
For those that are immunosuppressed and are unable to be vaccinated are at risk of being
infected by people shedding live viruses, such as the MMR. Paradiso addressed the issue when
he stated the dilemma of vaccine shortages in this article. He is stating that from 2000-2002 there
was a wide spread shortage of vaccines. The causes of the shortage vary in reason from policy
issues to problems with the manufacturing and regulating of vaccines. Proposals for government
manufacturing programs to increase the amount of vaccines being produced, as well as, decrease
shortages of vaccines were considered. However, the issue with attempting an endeavor like this
is the amount of time it would take to create a facility that is able to handle mass production in a
small amount of time. The timeline given to produce one vaccination (which could potentially be
more than one inoculation within a single vaccines) is approximately 12 months. The author
stated that even if it was to be funded by the government, production would still face the same
production that it does through a private pharmaceutical company. The conclusion is that if one
could increase the vaccination awareness more people would be vaccinated, thus an incentive for
companies to increase production. Potentially making the companies want to keep a steady and
readily available stock of vaccines so that there would never be a shortage (Paradiso, 2006).
According to Basch, there have been major improvements in vaccines. Basch discusses
the health issues in other countries and how vaccines improved their health and quality, as well

LITERATURE REVIEW

as, length of life. Basch also discusses the improvement in technology. Developments in
technology is key in the production of vaccines. Technology has created a better way to produce
vaccines, as well as, how they are designed and transferred. It has altered the amount of times
one is required to receive vaccinations and how many infectious diseases we are protected
against. Basch goes into detail regarding how vaccines are dispersed and the physical products
included in the vaccines. He also goes into detail in regards to the methodologies of vaccines. He
also goes into detail in regards to the ethics and epidemiology in the transferring of technologies.
Basch explores the safety of vaccines and why they are so vital to our society (Basch, 1994).
Is it legal to have your children taken away because you choose to
not vaccinate or delay vaccinations?
With the changing of technology in the world and the use of social media more and more;
parents are sharing their stories of government entities taking their children for what they believe
to be spreading of viruses. Mark Largent states there needs to be some type of common ground
when it comes to vaccines. He states that the values and importance of vaccines within the world
as a whole need to be commonplace. Largent states that there will always be parents with fears of
vaccines, but putting all information and the importance of vaccinating in an open forum, for the
public at large, will influence parents opinions. He also states that no one, not politicians,
scientists nor doctors should have the ability to dictate what a parent should or should not do
when it comes to the health and welfare of their children. Parents do what they feel is the very
best for their children and that ability should not be taken away because a parent chooses to
spread out their childs vaccination schedule, not vaccinate at all or to follow through with the
schedule as it is recommended by the physicians (Largent, 2012).

LITERATURE REVIEW

Nevertheless, The Harvard Law Review Association is stating that their needs to be a law
to differentiate between what is a medically necessary vaccine and a practically necessary
vaccine. Medically necessary vaccines are vaccines are necessary to protect against known
viable and deadly diseases. Practically necessary vaccines are vaccines that are not required to
protect you from a deadly disease, but as an alternative, an example of a practical vaccines is
Human Papillomavirus vaccines. This is an alternative vaccine it is not required, but is an
option. According to scientists there are a large quantity of vaccines in the works and will be
prepared for distribution in the near future. The authors stated that because of the large quantity
in the works there needs to be rules and regulations set in place as to what the government can
and cannot tell you to be inoculated against (Harvard Law Review,2008).
Macintosh and his fellow authors state in the journal that the number of vaccinated
adults is very low. The authors state that this is due to many adults being uninformed, they
do not know that they are required to continue getting boosters throughout their life. In
this article the authors present figures to support their claim, the figures show that only
51% of the adult population within the school district was current on their influenza
vaccination. Many of the teachers and faculty are opposed to making it mandated and feel
that it should be a personal choice. The authors gathered these results using a
questionnaire in which they asked the faculty of a school in Utah to complete. Public health
officials are being asked to pay more attention to these types of issues and assist in
increasing the vaccination rate by making the vaccinations more accessible to the staff.
According to the questionnaire, the major cause for a majority of the faculty not receiving
their vaccinations, was lack of time to do so and/or forgetting (Macintosh, 2014).

All authors make the claim that there needs to be a set of guidelines for vaccinations and
that parents should be able to make the decisions for their children without being harassed or

LITERATURE REVIEW

10

threatened that their children will be taken away. There should also be more leniency, if a disease
is eradicated there is no reason for a vaccination to still be in circulation. Also, a closer look
should be taken into what is in the vaccines and how safe they are. The rights of a parent should
not be taken away to fit the governments agenda. If information regarding vaccinations was more
accessible and doctors gave more evidence on the side effects, parents would be able to make a
more informed decision about them; in return, there may be a reduction in the movement to
vaccinate/ non vaccinate when the time comes. Much of the research regarding vaccines is
hidden and very difficult to find. Parents are not being informed as to what ingredients are in the
vaccine, only that their child MUST get it or they will die. It is never okay to keep parents in the
dark and not share the facts about the pros and cons of administering vaccines.

Bibliography
Barry, K., Kennedy Jr., R. F., & Haley, B. E. (2015). Vaccine whistleblower: Exposing autism
research fraud at the CDC Skyhorse Publishing.
Basch, P. F. (1994). Vaccines and world health :Science, policy, and practice. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC. (August 28, 2015).
Http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/adjuvants.html., August 28, 2015, from
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/adjuvants.html
Gerber, J. S., & Offit, P. A. (2009). Vaccines and autism: A tale of shifting hypotheses. Clinical
Infectious Diseases, 48(4), 456-461. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40309312

LITERATURE REVIEW

11

Humphries, S. (2013). Dissolving illusions: Disease, vaccines, and the forgotten history
CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Jaroff, L., Blackman, A., McDowell, J., & Park, A. (1999). Vaccine jitters. Time, 154(11), 64.
Retrieved from http://0search.ebscohost.com.lib.utep.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mth&AN=2226323&site=eh
ost-live&scope=site
Kirby, D. (2005). Evidence of harm :Mercury in vaccines and the autism epidemic : A medical
controversy (1st ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press.
Largent, M. A. (2012). Vaccine :The debate in modern america. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Macintosh, J., Luthy, K. E., Beckstrand, R. L., Eden, L. M., & Orton, J. (2014). Vaccination
perceptions of school employees in a rural school district. Vaccine, 32(37), 4766-4771.
doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.06.029
Paradiso, P. R. (2006). Establishing government-operated vaccine programs: An industry
perspective. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 42, S118-S120. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4463694
Reider, S. (2014). The science is not settled. Reason, 45(11), 24-26. Retrieved from http://0search.ebscohost.com.lib.utep.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=94778491&site=e
host-live&scope=site

LITERATURE REVIEW

12

Toward a twenty-first-century Jacobson v. Massachusetts.(2008). Harvard Law Review, 121(7),

1820-1841. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40042718