Make vaccine exemptions more difficult to obtain

September 5, 2012 Filed in: Anti-vaccines | Infectious disease | Vaccines

A study recently published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, Medical Exemptions to School Immunization Requirements in the United States–Association of State Policies With Medical Exemption Rates (2004-2011), found that more parents get medical vaccination exemptions for their kindergarten children in states in which they are easier to obtain. A perfectly predictable result, based on anecdotal observations of the arguments that I’ve observed on the internet.

The study found that the number of medical exemptions was relatively low during the seven years of the study period, but the rate was more than 6X higher in states with relatively easy medical exemption criteria when compared to states with more difficult exemption standards. As I reported previously, as more parents get vaccine exemptions, herd immunity can be impacted, and children in schools with low immunization levels can face outbreaks of diseases that were once thought rare.

The most interesting results from the study were:

  • The authors rated the medical exemption criteria as difficult in only three states: Arkansas, New Mexico, and Wyoming. The criteria were rated as medium in 17 states and easy in 30 states.
  • The nationwide rate of medical exemptions ranged from a low of 263 per 100,000 children (0.26%) in 2006-07 to a high of 411 per 100,000 (0.41%) in 2008-09. The national total of exemptions increased from 11,277 in 2004-05 to 13,952 in 2010-11. 
  • The total number of exemptions for kindergartners over the 7 years came to 87,631.
  • The rates of medical exemptions in states with easy or medium criteria were significantly higher than in those with difficult criteria, the researchers found. For “easy” states, the incidence rate ratio (IRR) was 6.4; for “medium” states, it was 4.4. In other words, there were approximately 45% more frequent exemptions in “easy” states than in medium states. (There wasn’t a comparison to “difficult” states, since there were so few of those.)
  • Medical exemptions were more numerous in states that had difficult or medium rules for nonmedical exemptions (380.5 and 364.3 per 100,000, respectively) than in states with easy nonmedical exemption rules (221.3 per 100,000).
  • Although medical exemption rates are low, other studies show they surpass 1% of kindergarten children in some states, the study reported. As we have seen in other studies, medical exemptions “add to existing pockets of susceptibility [to vaccine-preventable diseases] due to nonmedical exemptions to immunization,” because “immunization exemptors cluster geographically, increasing the possibility for local areas of increased disease incidence.”

The authors commented, “The appropriate use of medical exemptions is important to maintaining sufficient herd immunity to protect those who should not be vaccinated due to medical contraindications. Medical providers, parents, school officials, and state health officials are responsible for ensuring that medical exemptions are actually medically indicated.”

Let me repeat what I’ve written before. I am strongly opposed to ALL personal exemptions to vaccines, and that viewpoint is supported in the United States by the Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v United States which states that the freedom of the individual must sometimes be subordinated to the common welfare and is subject to the police power of the state. In other words, if vaccine denialists want to use public schools, then they must vaccinate. The common good outweighs personal beliefs, especially if that personal belief is unsupported by facts and evidence. Moreover, since the issue usually involves enrollment in public schools, they can choose to enroll their children in private schools, although those schools tend to have tough standards for vaccinations, because those don’t want their children being exposed to diseases that could be prevented by vaccines.

Furthermore, religious exemptions for vaccines should not exist in a secular country. If you want a religious exemption, then please send your child to a religious school, because a public school is a public institution, and according to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution public schools cannot favor one religious group over another. Or over those who don’t care about religion. In fact, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are opposed to almost all medical procedures, are not opposed to vaccinations.

As for medical exemptions, here is basically what is stated in the General Recommendations on Immunization of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP):

  1. Contraindications and precautions to vaccination are conditions under which vaccines should not or likely should not be administered. Because the majority of contraindications and precautions are temporary, vaccinations often can be administered later if one or more exist. A contraindication is a condition in a recipient that increases the risk for a serious adverse reaction. A vaccine should not be administered when a contraindication is present; for example, MMR vaccine should not be administered to severely immunocompromised persons. In contrast, certain conditions are commonly misperceived as contraindications (i.e., are not valid reasons to defer vaccination).
  2. National standards for pediatric vaccination practices have been established and include descriptions of valid contraindications and precautions to vaccination. Persons who administer vaccines should screen patients for contraindications and precautions to the vaccine before each dose of vaccine is administered.
  3. The only contraindication applicable to all vaccines is a history of a severe allergic reaction (i.e., anaphylaxis) after a previous dose of vaccine or to a vaccine component (unless the recipient has been desensitized; see Special Situations section). 
  4. Severely immunocompromised persons generally should not receive live vaccines. Children who experienced encephalopathy within 7 days after administration of a previous dose of diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and whole-cell pertussis vaccine (DTP), DTaP, or Tdap not attributable to another identifiable cause should not receive additional doses of a vaccine that contains pertussis. Because of the theoretical risk to the fetus, women known to be pregnant generally should not receive live, attenuated virus vaccines (see Special Situations section).
  5. A precaution is a condition in a recipient that might increase the risk for a serious adverse reaction or that might compromise the ability of the vaccine to produce immunity (e.g., administering measles vaccine to a person with passive immunity to measles from a blood transfusion or administering influenza vaccine to someone with a history of Guillain-Barré syndrome within 6 weeks of a previous influenza vaccination). A person might experience a more severe reaction to the vaccine than would have otherwise been expected; however, the risk for this happening is less than the risk expected with a contraindication. In general, vaccinations should be deferred when a precaution is present. However, a vaccination might be indicated in the presence of a precaution if the benefit of protection from the vaccine outweighs the risk for an adverse reaction. For example a dose of DTaP should be considered for a person in a community with a pertussis outbreak even if that person previously developed Guillain-Barré syndrome after a dose.
  6. The presence of a moderate or severe acute illness with or without a fever is a precaution to administration of all vaccines. 
  7. A personal or family history of seizures is a precaution for MMRV vaccination.
  8. The provider should ask the parent or guardian if the child is ill. If the child has a moderate or severe illness, the vaccination should be postponed.

Clinicians or other health-care providers might misperceive certain conditions or circumstances as valid contraindications or precautions to vaccination when they actually do not preclude vaccination. These misperceptions result in missed opportunities to administer recommended vaccines. Among the most common conditions mistakenly considered to be contraindications are diarrhea, minor upper respiratory tract illnesses (including otitis media) with or without fever, mild to moderate local reactions to a previous dose of vaccine, current antimicrobial therapy, and being in the convalescent phase of an acute illness.

In other words, reasons to medically exempt children from vaccines are unusual and should be infrequently given. In fact, as the ACIP states, it’s so rare that sometimes physicians misperceive reasons for not giving vaccinations. 

It’s time to stop allowing exemptions, which are nothing more than a cynical method for vaccine denialists to opt out of vaccinating their children, but still putting their children in school, putting other children at risk. If these people don’t care about the health of their children, then they should not be allowed to use public schools. That’s it, simple. No exemptions, except under the most narrow of regulations for medical exemptions. No religious exemptions. No personal exemptions. And very narrow medical exemptions approved by several layers of health care professionals to prevent abuse by the denialists.

Vaccines save lives.

via Study finds vaccine exemptions rise when easier to obtain | Vaccine News Daily.

Related Posts

Tags: | | | | | | | |

Comments (178)

178 Responses to “Make vaccine exemptions more difficult to obtain”

  1. Washington state makes it harder to get an immunization exemption says:
    September 23, 2012 at 18:02

    [...] My opposition to exemptions is rather more strict. There should be none, except for a few rare medical exceptions. But at least some states are going in the right direction. [...]

  2. Painless, needle-less injection for vaccinations says:
    September 20, 2012 at 12:00

    [...] I’ve discussed, I disagree with almost every objection to vaccinations, unless it’s a very specific medical condition. However, the pain of the injection is one [...]

  3. The myth of getting the flu from the flu shot says:
    September 18, 2012 at 11:44

    [...] did not want sales reps walking into their offices sick either, so it was a good business practice. Exemptions were just not given, because it was a job requirement stated clearly in the written job offer, so they had a choice to [...]

  4. Michelle McClung says:
    September 6, 2012 at 21:40

    To Michael and Robert…All I am going to say to your pompous higher than thou attitude talking selves is this: YOU are BOTH wrong and you are sheep following whatever the gov't, medical profession and greedy pharma companies want you to do! You both are the reason they are rich and living well in their big houses laughing at all like you who believe in that BS! Yes they are LAUGHING at how dumb and ignorant you are all the way to the BANK! And you want to know what? They are NOT vaccinating their own children while people like you are….Good job! I really hope the both of you are NOT parents because your children are in big trouble if you both are! You both have NO idea what you are talking about! You think you know everything? Why don't you educate yourselves before you make INCORRECT statements that YOU both know nothing about! You are a schmuck Michael for writing this garbage full of lies! And like one other person pointed out, you are WRONG about Jehovah's Witnesses and your claim that they are opposed to almost all medical procedures. That is so FAR from the truth! The only thing they are opposed to is accepting blood transfusions. So why don't you get your head out of your ass and get your facts straight! You can't even get that right, hmmmm….so I guess people may wonder what else you can't be right about! This whole article is a lying joke just like YOU!

  5. Jeanette Dunphy says:
    September 5, 2012 at 19:37

    To all you anti vaxers, have you ever visited one of the Polio Wards that are in every single hospital? Have you seen how Polio twists those poor childrens bodies, have you listened to a child fighting for life inside an Iron Lung?
    No?
    Why not?
    Because vaccinations have all but stamped out that most horrendous disease in Western countries.
    But heed this warning…

    In 2005 that in Northern Nigeria—a country which at that time was considered provisionally polio free—an Islamic Fatwah was issued declaring that the polio vaccine was a conspiracy by the United States and the United Nations against the Muslim faith, saying that the drops were designed to sterilize the true believers. Subsequently, polio reappeared in Nigeria and spread from there to several other countries.

  6. Julie Freeman says:
    September 5, 2012 at 18:54

    The US is known to have tested diseases on the public.

    Brazilian scientists breed GM mosquitos:
    http://vaccinenewsdaily.com/medical_countermeasures/319332-brazilian-scientists-breed-gm-mosquitoes-to-halt-dengue-spread/

    CDC involvement with bioterrorism laboratories in cuba:
    http://occupycorporatism.com/west-nile-virus-outbreak-justifies-spraying-toxic-chemicals-onto-citizens/

    Florida keys residents resist release of GM mosquitos:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/10/florida-resist-insect-release

    French drug company tests vaccine on children in thailand, hopes to see results by september. stands to make billions.
    http://ambergriscaye.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/439881/Dengue_Vaccine_in_Sight_After_.html

    Florida outbreak tracked back to arial spraying.
    http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=3822

    These are all reports fron june/july. CDC predicts numbers to rise by october. All the usual criminal departments and biological weapons laboratories are involved.

  7. Trinity Christian Homeschool says:
    September 5, 2012 at 16:07

    Is the CDC Deliberately Hiding the Truth about the Link between Autism and Mercury in Vaccines? http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/is-the-cdc-deliberately-hiding-the-truth-about-the-link-between-autism-and-mercury-in-vaccines/

  8. Diane Davis says:
    September 5, 2012 at 14:30

    It really is astounding to see the folks who call themselves "skeptics" try to defend these toxic poison injections. No wonder vaccines are not "safe." These are the people who are out heralding "The science!" this and "The science!" that when , in fact they have very little "science" (not even junk science) to back up their claims on "herd immunity" or "safety." Even the label indicates the carcinogenic and mutagenic effects have not been evaluated — so they have nothing but empty words. No "science," just empty words. And they think they will be able to change the established laws regarding vaccine exemptions to force and bully parents into caving in to this ridiculous hysteria? No, it ain't happening, the only thing you will end up with then is a nation of kids being home schooled which isn't a bad thing at all imo, but this desperate attack of the exemptions was very predictable.

  9. Charlotte Jo says:
    September 5, 2012 at 14:26

    So where is your scientific evidence that these lax states with less vaccinated children have higher rates/risks of disease outbreaks?

  10. Amanda Alis Volat Propriis says:
    September 5, 2012 at 14:26

    Good thing I don't want to use your public schools anyway. I find it highly amusing that you tout this, "Denialists don't care about the health of their children" bullshit, when all of us care about the health of our children enough to QUESTION what the rest of the sheep take blindly for fact when in reality, your opinion is no more fact than mine. One other thing, if vaccines work, how is my unvaccinated kid a risk to your vaccinated one? Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb…..

  11. Diane Davis says:
    September 5, 2012 at 14:17

    20 years ago we were told Autism was "rare." It isn't so "rare" today. And then we were told by Julie Gerberding at the CDC that the concession by the HHS that Hannah Poling's case of Autism and her underlying mitochondrial disorder (with "features" of autism) was caused by the table injury she suffered after being administered 9 vaccines on the same day was "rare." Mitochondrial disorders are turning out not to be so "rare" now amongst those autistic children being tested. So when I hear others drivel on and on about "rare" this and "rare" that, it doesn't make much sense. Just as it doesn't make sense to vaccinate a 12 hour old newborn with Hepatitis B vaccine unless their mother is positive since they are not being tested prior for egg allergies.

    • Christina Boyce Allman says:
      September 5, 2012 at 14:41

      I am glad you brought up egg allergies. I have worked in the food industry for a few years and became aware of the list of what foods are federally recognized allergens to the point where they have to have special labels on them because there are so many people allergic to these specific items that they warrent such recognition and identification. Eggs are on the list and they are in some vaccines also which are administered without benefit of seeing if a child can even handle the exposure to such an allergen. If someone actually believes that vaccines work and are useful how on earth is it that we don't even test to see how a child's system is going to handle it first? Egg can be tested with a simple scratch test, my son had his done. You can actually have a person's system tested to see if it is compromised or strong, why can't we test children first at the very least instead of trying to force mass vaccination by mandate without taking into account the FACTS that vaccines are actually dangerous on so many levels and have proved fatal to so many children thus far.

    • Diane Davis says:
      September 5, 2012 at 14:48

      That so true Christina! And why do the Health Insurance companies automatically cover booster shots when the titers could be tested to see if the booster (and all the risks that go with them) is even NEEDED? No wonder "Health care" coverage is so expensive! They waste money in areas that don't make sense. But the things they should cover, we have to FIGHT them tooth and nail….smh.

    • Christina Boyce Allman says:
      September 5, 2012 at 15:12

      I have asked for titers tests and other tests to check things that go along with my child's symptoms but the doctors refuse to do the tests I want them to do. Why? Maybe they are afraid that I am RIGHT. We haven't been able to afford to go to a natural doctor so we are kind of at the mercy of the doctors on our insurance but they absolutely refused to do a toxicity test since I wanted to see if he had high levels of the neurotoxins from vaccines. But they will administer many other tests that miss the mark on purpose. It seems they accomplished their goal. The vaccines made my son a returning customer, he has so many chronic problems such as Asthma that he has to be on daily meds for that my insurance and I are faithful clients, since of course without the medicine my son can't breathe very well. Growing up I remember my grandparents had so many pill boxes and daily meds and I do know there are kids that need them, but with increasing amounts of children so reliant on maintenance medications that is becoming normal, what is wrong with this picture? So many children shouldn't have to grow up legally drugged up!

    • Christina Boyce Allman says:
      September 5, 2012 at 15:33

      I just feel that since we have the ability to test to see how a child's system can handle a vaccine that there is NO excuse for the vaccine injuries that occurred due to egg allergy, compromised, weakened or immature immune systems etc. I don't believe vaccines even work, but for argument's sake lets say that even if they do work, do the consequences ( notice I did not say "risk", because I think by now so many children have been damaged that we have consequences, not risks)…do the CONSEQUENCES of injecting your child with toxic chemicals and poison really outweigh the benefit of possibly not catching something your child is unlikely to catch and is only deadly in extreme cases anyway even in those that do catch it?

    • Diane Davis says:
      September 5, 2012 at 16:59

      I paid around 100 bucks for a Urinary Porphyrins test to be done on my twins. I think the abbreviation is UPPA but you can learn more about that at this great website for parents recovering their their autistic and vaccine injured kids: Autismweb.com there is a "Biomedical section" that you can search just about anything from Lyme Disease to Homeopathy, great info and friendly people (mostly) lol It was definitely worth the money for us to pay out of pocket. We were able to detox our kids and they are doing so much better for it now. Even with a Complex 1 Mitochondrial disorder. I think if doctors had some 'consequences' like we parents do, things would be much different! They aren't living day in and day out with the problems that THEY have caused so why should they care? They don't. And just look at the billions big pharma forks out in 'fines' for the drugs they ARE liable for! Just imagine the havoc and carelessness when they can get off scot-free!

    • Michael Simpson says:
      September 9, 2012 at 18:06

      Wow. You're actually posting junk medicine on my website. Excellent. Homeopathy has been thoroughly debunked, because in double blind clinical trials, never once has it ever been shown to work, because not one single molecule exists in solution. Urinary porphyrins? Wow, going way off the scientific track aren't we? I should delete that, but I have a policy of only deleting spam and outright incivility. This is just junk science, which just means if anyone reads it, they can laugh and accidentally spit up coffee on their keyboard. LOL

    • Diane Davis says:
      September 9, 2012 at 19:38

      LOL The pharma shill talking smack about "junk science!" Pot, meet black kettle…

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14960096

    • Ryan Gambord says:
      April 25, 2013 at 07:43

      You seriously linked an article from the journal "Homeopathy"? You've effectively proven to everyone that you have so little understanding of basic science that your comments are not worth the time it takes to read them.

  12. Christina Boyce Allman says:
    September 5, 2012 at 14:02

    Actually there is more PROOF that vaccines cause injury to children and not much PROOF that they even work. If you injected your newborn with a cocktail of thermasol (mercury derivative that has only been removed from SOME, not all vaccines and is still contained in the flu vaccine in particular and is a neurotoxin which is not safe in ANY amount) formaldehyde (same stuff they embalm bodies with and is poisonous), arsenic (straight poison), aluminum (which has been found in the brains of Alzheimer patients and is a proven neurotoxin) and genetically altered DNA from aborted fetal cells (which could possibly alter your child's own DNA), you would be arrested for child abuse but if a doctor does it then it is "for the greater good"? If you want to know if vaccines cause autism then ask your doctor to see the package insert of any given vaccine you receive for the adverse reactions it DOES say Autism among a whole bunch of other things and that is straight from the manufacturer. Not only that but several vaccine manufacturers have been found out to have actually "fixed" the results of their own tests. Merck's own scientists have sued their employer due to the company resorting to threats to force the scientists to commit fraud in the testing of the MMR vaccine of which they have a monopoly on. They were getting only a 10% effective rate for which they did multiple things to manipulate the number including adding rabbit's blood to the finished sample of which using these deceptive practices they could pass off a 10% effective vaccine as a 95% effective vaccine. Is there any wonder why the majority of the people catching these things are among the vaccinated? You are bombarding your immune system, and in a baby the immune system isn't even fully developed, with all these things that you have a very low ability of actually becoming immune to. There scientifically is such a thing as a compromised immune system, so exactly what do you think you are doing to baby with an under developed immune system by giving him or her 10 things for their body to fight off at the same time? If you can OD on every other drug on the market why don't they list ANY type of restriction on such a drug as a vaccine which clearly includes known toxins that effect the brain and still claim it doesn't cause autism no matter how many you take? If there are trace amounts of any given toxin in a vaccine what does it become when you have 10 vaccines at once? If it still considered trace amount?

    • Alicia Miller says:
      September 5, 2012 at 15:09

      Well stated! I have said that since Marissa was diagnosed with it. And if I would ever have another child it would not be vaccinated because of all the chemicals.

    • Michael Simpson says:
      September 5, 2012 at 18:45

      I await the vast amount of data in secondary meta-reviews published in peer-reviewed high impact journals. Thanks you very much. Oh, by the way, any link between aluminum and Alzheimer's disease is under dispute. See, that's real science. We don't pick and choose what fits our bias. We read it all, but that's too hard for you people.

    • Trinity Christian Homeschool says:
      September 5, 2012 at 22:36

      CDC Deliberately Hiding the Truth about the Link between Autism and Mercury in Vaccines? http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/is-the-cdc-deliberately-hiding-the-truth-about-the-link-between-autism-and-mercury-in-vaccines/

    • Christina Boyce Allman says:
      September 7, 2012 at 15:27

      Michael Simpson I do read every thing I can about vaccines pro or against. I have seen no clear evidence from the pro vaccine side. They say "no link has been found" and then take it as a fact that there is no link when in fact there are many studies that have found a link but they just aren't funded by the vaccine companies who have a vested interest in making people think their product full of toxins is as safe as water. It is not scientific to say that a lack of evidence is of itself evidence and this seems to be that vaccine companies stance on the matter. Just so you know, I had my child vaccinated because I took it for granted like so many others that vaccines were safe because it was expected that we vaccinate him. It was only after seeing the cause and effect relationship between vaccines and my son's conditions first hand and REPEATEDLY that changed my mind and that is when I started reading and have found out so much. The basics are the ingredients and adverse reactions which can be found in the packaging of the product itself as well as the CDC website. I would read peer reviewed journals but I don't need them to tell me all about the problems that have become a central focus of our very lives. In short, I vaccinated because I was an uninformed parent who knew little about the subject, NOW, I no longer allow my son to be vaccinated because I am informed and I keep reading everything I can get my eyes on about it and now I know better!

    • Christina Boyce Allman says:
      September 7, 2012 at 15:37

      Besides if the only information you ever consider is from vaccine company funded research then you are like a horse with blinders on. Research isn't limited to one type or variety of resources but is best conducted by reading from MANY types of resources including those with conflicting beliefs and making your own decision based on everything you have read. You actually have to use your brain to determine what of any set of views and facts makes sense to you. You can't just say" oh, I believe anything this person says because they are highly regarded by others in the scientific community" because what you are saying is that you are beginning and ending your research with someone else's determination without putting in the foot work yourself. This is what I call lazy research. I do read the pro side of things, it just doesn't explain what we live with EVERY DAY with our son!

    • Michael Simpson says:
      September 9, 2012 at 18:00

      Your assumption that scientists are unethical and immoral is baseless. So, let's just wait until you prove it. I await this proof, but it better be good.

      You have NO proof of anything between your son and vaccines. NONE. You are inventing things, probably to make money off of a lawsuit. How low can you go? You see how people can invent things? I can do it too.

    • Christina Boyce Allman says:
      September 10, 2012 at 09:45

      I can't prove it to YOU what I have gone through with my son or what many many other parents have gone through. If my son had been a case study conducted by a person you consider to be reputable then my son would have been all the PROOF a person would need. The problem is that when a child has even immediate reactions to a vaccine the doctors have been taught to completely ignore it and call it a "coincidence", no matter how many times it happens. How can the doctors not know what the problem is yet know for sure what didn't cause the problem without the benefit of ANY tests? The parents are the ones who take the child home and see what actually happens yet all our stories fall on deaf ears. I could post for you all my son's medical records but that wouldn't be enough to convince you either. I can't prove to you my son's story but then again it isn't my job to prove that vaccines are dangerous, if someone wants to inject my son with poison then it is THEIR job to prove that vaccines are safe and that is something they haven't done.
      If you read my posts then you would know that much of what I say is said with basic common sense even if it isn't actually that common. Science can not PROVE that anything doesn't exist, the only thing you can to is PROVE what does exist. So, yes, I will say that ANY scientist who parrots the line "there is no link between vaccines and autism" is saying something that is completely unscientific. However, there are MANY doctors and scientists that do recognize not only the link to autism but also the link to the chronic problems children have in record numbers these days. You may feel that Wakefield is such a crock but he was actually exonerated and it was found that the debunker used fraudulent means to discredit him, but he is neither the beginning or the end of college educated individuals with degrees who have seen and studied what vaccines actually do to children and feel that vaccines are dangerous.
      You really think I am in it for the money? Really? Do you realize how crazy expensive it is to raise a child who is on medication for chronic conditions, a child who needs therapy for his speech and Autism and/ or ADHD like symptoms? A child who has regressed where even the doctors knew that something is wrong and they have run tons of tests, such as MRI's and EEGs etc on my son and they STILL can't find out what is wrong, yet they continue to ignore that the vaccines had repeatedly been the catalyst for these regressions? If you did realize in any way how expensive it is to raise a "special" child then you would realize that the parents who write about their children's stories on the internet which really doesn't net them any money at all…..ARE NOT IN IT FOR THE MONEY! Besides, I ask a lot of common sense questions in my posts…..have you actually answered any of these questions? I write to warn other parents of the dangers that have happened to my son in the hopes that even one child should not have to go through this. I write not to convince, but to let people know there is a problem so that they can start their own research and decide what is best for their family. Vaccines are not one size fits all. If I could take back allowing my child to be vaccinated and just allow my son's immune system to mature on it's own without the side effects of the vaccines plaguing him and us, I would jump at the chance. Having a special child is a hardship, not an opportunity get rich quick as you claim. That just shows you were lucky enough to have a kid who didn't react or you don't have any kids at all or maybe you are in a position to receive money from vaccines such as being an employee or something I don't know but you are trying to discredit a person's personal experience without having any real reason to, so I feel your own motives are questionable.

    • Christina Boyce Allman says:
      September 10, 2012 at 10:34

      I do also believe that vaccines are not the whole story on why this is happening to our children and perhaps even you Michael can agree on part of what I am about to say, maybe. There are toxins all over the world and our children are growing up in an increasingly toxic environment with genetically modified foods and chemicals and various levels of radiation everywhere. Some children handle the vaccines better than others, and it is true that our bodies are wonderful machines that have the ability to handle an amount of toxins, but our bodies do have limits. I feel that there is a prepositional to a child's ability to handle the vaccines in the form of a weakened system due to exposure to environmental toxins. This is why I feel that every child's system should be tested for strength and allergies to vaccine ingredients before vaccines are administered. It just makes sense to me that since vaccines do not make antibodies on their own, vaccines need an immune system to be in working condition before they can successfully trigger it to make antibodies. If an immune system isn't in working order then how can we expect the vaccines to accomplish anything.
      To me it seems as though environment loads the gun, so to speak, and vaccines pull the trigger with their own load of toxins. I do feel that vaccines in this way are not entirely to blame but I do still feel they are dangerous and have more risk than what the doctors tell you, especially for those children who already carry toxic levels and/ or have a compromised immune system. If you can not agree to even the smallest shred of what I say then I shall agree to disagree because you are entitled to your beliefs too.

  13. Diane Davis says:
    September 5, 2012 at 14:01

    Right. Get your toxic poison vaccines so you can shed and become contagious to other kids…explain how this "prevents" the spread of illnesses again please?
    from page 13.
    http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM294307.pdf

    FluMist and FluMist Quadrivalent contain live attenuated influenza viruses that must infect and replicate in cells lining the nasopharynx of the recipient to induce immunity. Vaccine viruses capable of infection and replication can be cultured from nasal secretions obtained from vaccine recipients (shedding) [see Pharmacodynamics (12.2)].
    12.2 Pharmacodynamics
    Shedding Studies
    Shedding of vaccine viruses within 28 days of vaccination with FluMist was evaluated in (1) multi-center study MI-CP129 which enrolled healthy individuals 6 through 59 months of age (N = 200); and (2) multi-center study FM026 which enrolled healthy individuals 5 through 49 years of age (N = 344). In each study, nasal secretions were obtained daily for the first 7 days and every other day through either Day 25 and on Day 28 or through Day 28. In study MI-CP129, individuals with a positive shedding sample at Day 25 or Day 28 were to have additional shedding samples collected every 7 days until culture negative on 2 consecutive samples. Results of these studies are presented in Table 5.

    Age
    6-23 months of the 99 in the cohort—> 89% were positive for shedding.

    • Michael Simpson says:
      September 5, 2012 at 18:11

      Confirmation bias much? :)

    • Diane Davis says:
      September 6, 2012 at 19:09

      Bias? How do you mean? Because I'm a parent?

    • Michael Simpson says:
      September 7, 2012 at 15:51

      Confirmation Bias is simply the tendency for individuals to favor information or data that support their beliefs. It is the tendency for people to only seek out information that conforms to their pre-existing view points, and subsequently ignore information that goes against them. It is a type of cognitive bias and a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study. Avoiding confirmation bias is an important part of rationalism and in science in general. This is achieved by setting up problems so that you must find ways of disproving your hypothesis (see falsifiability).

    • Diane Davis says:
      September 9, 2012 at 19:47

      A pristine description of a few pseudo skeptics I know!

  14. Veronica Sebrell says:
    September 5, 2012 at 13:21

    What you say about Jehovah's Witnesses is not true. Vaccines contain aborted fetal cell tissue (MRC-5 for example,) they are opposed to such things. Also, this may be a secular country, but it was founded on the idea of religious freedom. Get your head out of your ass.

    • Michael Simpson says:
      September 5, 2012 at 13:38

      Yes, freedom from religion means that you keep religious ideas out of schools. So, if you want a religious exemption, please go to a religious school. Fairly simple, that's why we have the Establishment Clause. Oh one more thing. Civil Discourse is appreciated if you would like to make a point. Jsust saying.

    • Veronica Sebrell says:
      September 5, 2012 at 13:42

      It may be a public establishment, but the public has the right to freedom of religion.That's the way it is and that is not likely to change. If you are so sure of vaccines, it should not matter to you. If you are so concerned, maybe you should home school.

    • Narendra Kushwaha says:
      September 9, 2012 at 17:19

      BUT right now religon become impose in ASIA & other too

    • Jonathan Graham says:
      October 8, 2012 at 19:51

      Weird, MRC-5 doesn't contain aborted fetal cell tissue it contains cells from a fetal cell line. It makes about as much sense to oppose the use of MRC-5 because you disagree with the CoD as it would to oppose the use of a cell-line because the original donor died of organ failure. Nobody is Pro organ failure but using the cells doesn't in any way support or promote organ failure. While JW's might not object to every medical procedure their objection to blood transfusions does limit a number of gross surgeries – some of these are becoming safer with more modern techniques – for example some kinds of heart surgeries are safe or safer – with considerable pre-work. However organ transplant is probably out of the question.

    • Veronica Sebrell says:
      October 8, 2012 at 21:00

      That cell line came from the lung tissue of a 14 week old male fetus in 1966. https://www.atcc.org/ATCCAdvancedCatalogSearch/ProductDetails/tabid/452/Default.aspx?ATCCNum=CCL-171&Template=cellBiology

      JWs generally do not believe in mixing blood, and for a large amount of them, this includes blood transfusions, organs and vaccinations based on the idea that they were forbidden to eat blood because mixing DNA was against God's will.

    • Jonathan Graham says:
      October 8, 2012 at 22:04

      It's fetal cell line – I already pointed that out. My point was that you seemed to think the CoD was relevant to the restriction (or why bother mentioning it). Anyway I highly doubt that any modern body of reasonably educated JWs holds the belief that "mixing DNA" is the underlying problem with the biblical restriction against consuming blood. Since you are obviously taking in massive quantities of DNA when you eat any plant or animal product. Something that might have occurred to you before you typed that line. That said I'm sure there are a myriad of modern justifications for the restriction that aren't so obviously obtuse.

    • Veronica Sebrell says:
      October 8, 2012 at 22:19

      The belief about mixing DNA is in regards to mixing your DNA with another human's, outside of reproduction. You knew that though, you're just looking to argue. I didn't say I hold these beliefs, I'm not even religious, but yes plenty of JW's feel this way. I know quite a few highly educated JW's who feel this wa

    • Jonathan Graham says:
      October 8, 2012 at 23:00

      The problem with your interpretation is that it's simply impossible to hold consistently with the idea that the restriction against transfusions is exegetical – a position the WTBTS has held for eighty years. Please don't misunderstand I'm not correcting you just to argue. I'm correcting you because you're being silly.

  15. Jeanie Laura Tardie says:
    September 5, 2012 at 13:07

    I was just about to make the same comment! If you child is vaccinated, than what are you worried about? Fact is, they do NOT work! What other reason would anyone else care if the other children are not vaccinated and your is? hummmmm….makes you wonder!

  16. Somer Time Andthelivinseasy says:
    September 5, 2012 at 13:00

    Please explain your thought process here: Children who are not vaccinated put kids who are vaccinated at risk… How, if vaccines work? Derp.

    • Robert Hembree says:
      September 5, 2012 at 13:14

      Because that is not how vaccines work. There is no such thing as immunity conferred by vaccines. Vaccines provide nothing but resistance. They create an environment in which the body has ready antibodies in case a disease you have been vaccinated against enters your body. For most day to day use this means that your body can take care of the virus before it begins to affect you. Just like you can catch one can that falls out of a poorly stacked cabinet but not 30 cans. If one unvaxxed kid is to get a vax preventable disease and come into contact with a vaxxed kid, well then that is like throwing a dump truck of cans at the kid. The body can catch and mitigate some of them but not all of them. I.E. the kid gets the disease. The already present antibodies will tend to make the case more mild than for the unvaxxed kid. This is also along the lines of how "herd Immunity" works. If everyone is able to fend off small amounts of the disease then it is extremely unlikely that someone will get it and pass it along. So please take back your derp targeted at these authors

    • Lauren DiIulio says:
      September 5, 2012 at 13:23

      omg can everyone please stop this "my unvaccinated child is putting your vaccinated child at risk". how about the whooping cough outbreak? EVERY SINGLE PERSON INFECTED WAS VACCINATED. LIVE AND LET LIVE. if some people are against vaccines, so be it.

    • Somer Time Andthelivinseasy says:
      September 5, 2012 at 13:26

      I will not take back my "derp" as you and these authors don't seem to realize how our immune system works. We do not pick up diseases intravenously wrapped up in carcinogens. There is no reason a newborn should be vaccinated for Hepatitis B before even leaving the hospital when Hepatitis B is not something the child can catch unless the mother was infected during birth. There is no reason to vaccinate against ONE of the thousands of strains of flu. The CDC has gone overboard and my children and I will not walk the plank with them. I'm glad to live in a country/state where someone else's opinion doesn't force me to have myself/my children injected with a toxic stew against my will.

    • Michael Simpson says:
      September 5, 2012 at 13:35

      We reserve "derp" for those who lack scientific support for their statements. The fact is that exempt children tend to lump together in certain schools because those who accept the conspiracy theories on vaccines tend to lump together I suppose. See one of my other posts about this:

      http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/research-shows-vaccine-denialists-put-risk/

      Must be that vaccine denialism breeds other vaccine denialism.

    • Jeanie Laura Tardie says:
      September 5, 2012 at 13:38

      Funny how they now recommend the pregnant women receive the FLU vaccine when the vaccine insert proclaims that it has NEVER been tested on pregnant women!

    • Lauren DiIulio says:
      September 5, 2012 at 13:38

      please, inform me on your "scientific support" on how vaccines actually work.

    • Somer Time Andthelivinseasy says:
      September 5, 2012 at 13:43

      Right, because there's no scientific evidence supporting the facts that formaldehyde and phenoxyethanol (antifreeze) are not substances you should ingest or stick into your veins …. Eyeroll!

    • Michael Simpson says:
      September 5, 2012 at 13:44

      Jeanie…Ummmmmmm. See this: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/flu-shots-safe-pregnant-women/

      Oh wait. Do those results show that pregnant women who receive the flu vaccination have lower incidents of neonatal issues? Fewer incidents of stillbirths? Oh snap, I win! You lose?

    • Robert Hembree says:
      September 5, 2012 at 13:45

      I understand perfectly well how the immune system works. I get the impression the author does too. I like how you try to shift the topic instead of explaining how I am wrong.

      1) Who is to say what method we pick up diseases. Sometimes we ingest them. Sometimes we breathe them in. Sometimes it comes from a swap of bodily fluids. Sometimes it enters through blood. Sometimes it enters through cuts (quite similar to getting through an injection).

      2) Did I say anything about any specific vaccine? Sure you can debate when a Hep B vaccine should be given. I find the argument over timing to be irrelevant here when the debate is over whether or not people should.

      3) That is the main reason I don't get a flu shot. There are so many strains it seems pointless to me. And getting the wrong one can assist you in getting sick as it will distract your immune system in a sense. I don't see what this has to do with anything yet again as the debate here isn't over flu shots.

      4) Your conjecture about the CDC is rather subjective and doesn't belong in a debate regarding facts. As to this toxic stew. In general people put far worse into their bodies on a daily basis. I don't see where you are going with this other than trying to demonize something you seem to have a poor understanding of.

    • Michael Simpson says:
      September 5, 2012 at 13:46

      Lauren DiIulio Do you have about 15 years so that you can get a BS in biology, a Ph.D. in immunology, a post-doc in immune research, and a few years publishing research in immunology? When you do, I'll give you my full undivided attention in how vaccines work. But you'd rather go the 2 hour university of google route and think you know it all.

    • Somer Time Andthelivinseasy says:
      September 5, 2012 at 13:48

      "That would be incorrect. Please provide evidence from peer reviewed journals. " (From your reply to Veronica Sebrell) ;)

    • Jeanie Laura Tardie says:
      September 5, 2012 at 13:54

      Michael – don't know if you even have any kids, BUT, in China they do NOT give children vaccines before they turn 2 years old. HOW COME? hummmmmmm, cause it is NOT SAFE!
      ALSO: the Amish children have VERY low rates if any at all of Autism…something to think about!
      Seems to me that maybe you are on Merck's payroll!

    • Somer Time Andthelivinseasy says:
      September 5, 2012 at 13:57

      I don't need to spend an hour of my life explaining why you're wrong or why I'm right. The pro vaccine vs anti vaccine argument applies to all vaccines, specific and general, so me pointing out specific flaws doesn't warrant an apology or surrender on my part. The bottom line is: It's MY choice, MY kids, MY body … None of your business whatsoever! Toodles!

    • Lauren DiIulio says:
      September 5, 2012 at 13:59

      michael simpson actually, i am one of the select few who have been raised this way. i can't help what i've been taught and i've never "googled" a vaccine related injury or anything like that. this is why i don't get involved in these stupid debates. like i said before, live and let live. leave us alone. i have never been vaccinated and my kids will be vaccinated OVER MY DEAD BODY.

    • Lauren DiIulio says:
      September 5, 2012 at 14:09

      and obviously i don't know it all if i was asking you for your "scientific support". apparently you're too much of a big shot to share a little information with me. i was just trying to be open minded :)

    • EJ Kelly says:
      September 5, 2012 at 14:09

      interesting debate

    • Robert Hembree says:
      September 5, 2012 at 14:13

      Somer. If you make a specific claim as to my correctness then you should take the time to explain how it is incorrect. I can scream all day that something is incorrect. That doesn't make it so unless I back up that argument.

      The vaccination argument does sort of depend on the specific vaccination. They operate in different ways on different diseases. Some diseases such as the flu or the cold change quickly and effective vaccines are difficult or not impossible. Something like Hepatitis with only a few strains is much more possible.

      The bottom line is that your choice affects others in this case. You are putting your child at an elevated risk. You are in turn putting others at elevated risk. It is the same reason you can't go to a gun range and force your kid to walk across the range while people are firing and the same reason you can't go to the middle of a crowd and fire a gun straight up into the air. THe kid might not get hit but they are at much more risk than if they were behind the shooters. You might be choosing to shoot at your own body by shooting straight up in the air but it can easily miss and hit someone else.

      I know it is a bit of an absurd example but the point is that it is not your choice to put other people at an elevated risk. I have no right to intentionally put someone in harms way.

    • Lauren DiIulio says:
      September 5, 2012 at 14:14

      http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf

      and please humor me. why would i work so hard to buy all organic food, non toxic body care products, eating utensils, diaper care, cleaning products, ETC… JUST to have all of the ingredients i avoid on a daily basis injected into me and my children? and these ingredients are real. it's not just "googled"

    • Jeanie Laura Tardie says:
      September 5, 2012 at 15:05

      @Robert Hembree – You are in turn putting others at elevated risk??? MAY I ASK WHY ANYONE WHO IS VACCINATED AT RISK? BECAUSE VACCINES DO NOT WORK! I suppose you are going to go out and get the NEW shingles vaccine too…lmaooooooooooo! All you are doing is making someone very rich ;-)

    • Somer Time Andthelivinseasy says:
      September 5, 2012 at 15:08

      I am not putting anyone at any elevated risk – I am reducing the amount of chemicals my kids are exposed to. I am reducing the risk of SIDS for my soon-to-be newborn. I am making an informed decision about my family's health which is the right of every parent on earth. If you agree that certain vaccines are superfluous (flu shot) then why would you want our government to be able to force you to get it? It doesn't make sense. At least in my state, public schools require the flu shot or a religious/medical exemption (which are easy to obtain here, thankfully).

    • Robert Hembree says:
      September 5, 2012 at 15:44

      Jeanie: The biggest thing about vaccines that doesn't work is your misconception as to what they are. Refer to my first post where I address that exact statement.

      Infact the whole lot of you seem to be sticking your fingers in your ears while shouting "big pharma", "toxins", "chemicals" while criticizing things that you have demonstrated to me that you have no understanding in.

      Atleast I am not making some snake oil homeopath rich on nothing but wild baseless conjecture and outright lies. Atleast the people that I "make rich" are selling something with claims that they can back up with hard, verified, peer reviews data based on a real understanding of how the body works and how statistic works and how viruses and your immune system.

      Somer: I would agree with you if I actually thought you were making an informed decision. The fact is that you are not. You are making a fear based decision based on things I don't believe you actually understand.

    • Somer Time Andthelivinseasy says:
      September 5, 2012 at 16:34

      Your opinion that I'm not making an informed decision doesn't bother me. I know what I've read, I know personally 3 families that have been negatively effected by vaccines, I know formaldehyde, mercury, and antifreeze are not things you're supposed to put into your veins (how can you even begin to disagree with that?), I know that 7,000 newborns die every year shortly after recieving vaccines and that's ONLY what's reported – the actual number is much higher because obviously no Dr. wants to admit that they administered a poison to a child which caused death, and I know that giant pharmeceutical corporations don't necessarily have the people's best interest in mind. My informed decision comes down to risk – getting toxic concoctions injected into a newborn/toddler whose immune system hasn't had a chance to develop without ANY studies on genetic mutation capabilities or actual effectiveness, or being studied for long term side effects carries a higher risk than the slight possibility of contracting what we're vaccinating against.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Powered by WordPress



Plugin from the creators of Brindes Personalizados :: More at Plulz Wordpress Plugins

About me