Texas Legislator Calls Out Dr. Hotez for Attacking Parental Rights
Published June 12, 2019 | Ethics, Informed Consent
On May 7, 2019, there was a short exchange of tweets on Twitter
between pediatrician Peter Hotez, MD, PhD and Rep. Jonathan Strickland
of the Texas House of Representatives. Dr. Hotez wrote:
Texas Rep. Strickland strongly disagrees with Dr. Hotez, making it clear that he believes that the decision to vaccinate children should be left up to their parents, not government employees. He was also pointing out that Dr. Hotez should not be lobbying the Texas Legislature to eliminate personal belief vaccine exemptions because he has an inherent conflict of interest, given that he develops vaccines for a living.
In addition to serving as dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine, Dr. Hotez is co-director of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development (Texas Children’s CVD), which receives money from government, industry and private foundations, such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, to develop and produce vaccines.3 4 5 6 7 8
In 2017, vaccine manufacturer Merck & Co. formed a strategic alliance with Baylor College of Medicine and its vaccine product development partnership (PDP), Texas Children’s CVD, to “advance vaccine research and development for neglected and emerging infections.”9
It is these kind of financial associations that Rep. Strickland correctly points out represent a conflict of interest for Dr. Hotez, who cannot help but benefit professionally from the relationships and the industry, government and foundation funding given to the university and hospital where he works as a vaccine developer.
Dr. Hotez has been described as an “advocate” and “spokesperson” for the vaccine industry.8
Rep. Strickland clearly does not like the idea of a defacto representative of the vaccine industry using his prestige and medical authority to lobby Texas state legislators to take away parental rights regarding something so fundamental as their children’s health care decisions. You can sense that in Rep. Strickland’s comment:
But that’s not what the media reported. The headline in CNN read, “Texas lawmaker calls vaccine research ‘sorcery’.1 Another one in The Washington Post read, “GOP state legislator attacks vaccine scientist on Twitter, accusing him of self-enrichment, ‘sorcery’.10 Patheos published an even more blatantly biased and prejudiced headline—”Anti-Vax For Jesus: Conservative Christian Lawmaker Calls Vaccines ‘Sorcery’”11
Many other newspapers, magazines and websites took their cue from these news sources and ran with similar headlines likely meant to convey the message that anyone who does not follow the government and medical community’s party line (to the letter) on vaccines does so because they do not believe in science or, at least, view science as something akin to sorcery and witchcraft.
The media got it wrong here. It’s not entirely clear from Rep. Strickland’s tweets what he thinks of vaccines. However, it is obvious that he highly values parental rights and is repulsed by a doctor with conflicts of interest urging government to whittle away at them.
It is also evident that Rep. Strickland doesn’t particularly care for Dr. Hotez. Remember, this is the same Peter Hotez who said that the so-called “anti-vax movement” should be “snuffed out.” The same Peter Hotez who referred to organizations criticizing vaccine safety and advocating for informed consent rights like the National Vaccine Information Center as a “hate group” that “hate their family and hate their children.”4 12
This is the same Peter Hotez who referred to terms such as “medical freedom” and “vaccine choice” as “phony nonsense.”13
Seen in this context, it is understandable why Rep. Strickland reprimanded Dr. Hotez for pressuring Texas legislators to legally prevent parents from exercising voluntary, informed consent to vaccination for their children. Dr. Hotez’s anger and threats should be of concern to everyone. It is the manner of conducting in which Dr. Hotez conducts himself that Strickland seems to find “disgusting.”1
This article or commentary provides referenced information and perspective on a topic related to vaccine science, policy, law or ethics being discussed in public forums and by U.S. lawmakers. The websites of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) provide information and perspective of federal agencies responsible for vaccine research, development, regulation and policymaking.
Referenc
New exemption numbers tell much of the story. I’ll tell the rest: Children of have been placed in harm’s way for the financial gain of special & outside interest groups. Calling on our TX elected leaders to say “NO MAS” and stand up for our children!1Rep. Strickland responded:
You are bought and paid for by the biggest special interest in politics. Do our state a favor and mind your own business. Parental rights mean more to us than your self enriching “science.”1Dr. Hotez snapped back:
Wow that’s impressive, from a member of the Texas House of Representatives. Sir, as you know, I don’t take a dime from the vaccine industry. I develop neglected disease vaccines for the world’s poorest people. And as a Texas pediatrician-scientist it is most certainly my business.1But Rep. Strickland’s stood his ground:
You are bought and paid for by the biggest special interest in politics. Do our state a favor and mind your own business. Parental rights mean more to us than your self enriching “science.”1He added:
Make the case for your sorcery to consumers on your own dime. Like every other business. Quit using the heavy hand of government to make your business profitable through mandates and immunity. It’s disgusting.1The focus of the exchange was about the influence of special interest groups on decisions legislators make about including or eliminating exemptions in vaccine laws. Dr. Hotez has a long history of attacking parents of vaccine injured children and aggressively lobbying for the elimination of non-medical vaccine exemptions in Texas. In both national and international forums, he has advocated for forced vaccination laws that deny parents the legal right to obtain vaccine exemptions for their children for reasons of conscience, as well as for religious beliefs.2
Texas Rep. Strickland strongly disagrees with Dr. Hotez, making it clear that he believes that the decision to vaccinate children should be left up to their parents, not government employees. He was also pointing out that Dr. Hotez should not be lobbying the Texas Legislature to eliminate personal belief vaccine exemptions because he has an inherent conflict of interest, given that he develops vaccines for a living.
In addition to serving as dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine, Dr. Hotez is co-director of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development (Texas Children’s CVD), which receives money from government, industry and private foundations, such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, to develop and produce vaccines.3 4 5 6 7 8
In 2017, vaccine manufacturer Merck & Co. formed a strategic alliance with Baylor College of Medicine and its vaccine product development partnership (PDP), Texas Children’s CVD, to “advance vaccine research and development for neglected and emerging infections.”9
It is these kind of financial associations that Rep. Strickland correctly points out represent a conflict of interest for Dr. Hotez, who cannot help but benefit professionally from the relationships and the industry, government and foundation funding given to the university and hospital where he works as a vaccine developer.
Dr. Hotez has been described as an “advocate” and “spokesperson” for the vaccine industry.8
Rep. Strickland clearly does not like the idea of a defacto representative of the vaccine industry using his prestige and medical authority to lobby Texas state legislators to take away parental rights regarding something so fundamental as their children’s health care decisions. You can sense that in Rep. Strickland’s comment:
Parental rights mean more to us than your self enriching “science.”1It is the issue of “parental rights” and the injustice of an influential medical doctor developing vaccines for the pharmaceutical industry trying to get government to usurp the basic human right of informed consent that was at the core of Rep. Strickland’s tweets.
But that’s not what the media reported. The headline in CNN read, “Texas lawmaker calls vaccine research ‘sorcery’.1 Another one in The Washington Post read, “GOP state legislator attacks vaccine scientist on Twitter, accusing him of self-enrichment, ‘sorcery’.10 Patheos published an even more blatantly biased and prejudiced headline—”Anti-Vax For Jesus: Conservative Christian Lawmaker Calls Vaccines ‘Sorcery’”11
Many other newspapers, magazines and websites took their cue from these news sources and ran with similar headlines likely meant to convey the message that anyone who does not follow the government and medical community’s party line (to the letter) on vaccines does so because they do not believe in science or, at least, view science as something akin to sorcery and witchcraft.
The media got it wrong here. It’s not entirely clear from Rep. Strickland’s tweets what he thinks of vaccines. However, it is obvious that he highly values parental rights and is repulsed by a doctor with conflicts of interest urging government to whittle away at them.
It is also evident that Rep. Strickland doesn’t particularly care for Dr. Hotez. Remember, this is the same Peter Hotez who said that the so-called “anti-vax movement” should be “snuffed out.” The same Peter Hotez who referred to organizations criticizing vaccine safety and advocating for informed consent rights like the National Vaccine Information Center as a “hate group” that “hate their family and hate their children.”4 12
This is the same Peter Hotez who referred to terms such as “medical freedom” and “vaccine choice” as “phony nonsense.”13
Seen in this context, it is understandable why Rep. Strickland reprimanded Dr. Hotez for pressuring Texas legislators to legally prevent parents from exercising voluntary, informed consent to vaccination for their children. Dr. Hotez’s anger and threats should be of concern to everyone. It is the manner of conducting in which Dr. Hotez conducts himself that Strickland seems to find “disgusting.”1
This article or commentary provides referenced information and perspective on a topic related to vaccine science, policy, law or ethics being discussed in public forums and by U.S. lawmakers. The websites of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) provide information and perspective of federal agencies responsible for vaccine research, development, regulation and policymaking.
Referenc
No comments:
Post a Comment