It’s unfortunate that the Port Townsend School District is requiring another booster for the young girl mentioned in the letter to the editor in the Feb. 15 issue.
Ten days under her one-year …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you had an active account on our previous website, then you have an account here. Simply reset your password to regain access to your account.
If you did not have an account on our previous website, but are a current print subscriber, click here to set up your website account.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
* Having trouble? Call our circulation department at 360-385-2900, or email our support.
Please log in to continue |
|
It’s unfortunate that the Port Townsend School District is requiring another booster for the young girl mentioned in the letter to the editor in the Feb. 15 issue.
Ten days under her one-year birth date would make no difference in whether or not she is still immune. It’s especially unfortunate that this vaccine is required, since Merck is currently involved in a lawsuit wherein they are accused of lying about the efficacy of the mumps vaccine. A Pennsylvania federal judge has just ruled in favor of allowing the lawsuit to go forward.
“This week, U.S. District Judge C. Darnell Jones II ruled that the whistleblowers had sufficiently pled that Merck might have provided false statements to the government and that the direct purchasers had shown enough evidence to establish that these falsehoods could have helped the company gain a monopoly,” as quoted in Health Impact News. See
healthimpactnews.com.
TAMMI SWANSON
Chimacum
Editor’s note: A link to the article is too long to print and is with this letter online.
