The Picture of Desperation

As more people become aware of the low risks posed by infectious illnesses, vaccine fanatics have had to take their campaign of fear mongering to a new low. In a desperate attempt to deceive parents, the extremists, holed up in basements and garages throughout the USA, England and Australia, are compiling a series of photos they hope will scare parents into vaccinating. (At first I was not going to give credence to the reprehensible tactics used by these reprobates by linking to the actual photos. But now I realize linking to them is the best way to expose this particular act of desperation )  Oddly, some of the photos actually show nothing more than a frowning child with a rash - I guess some illnesses are so mild even a worst-case scenario photo is incapable of instilling even moderate concern. On the other hand, a few pictures do portray incredibly rare but undoubtedly severe outcomes that can rarely result from the combination of infectious illnesses and contributing factors such as impaired immune status or environmental deprivations.

Since a picture tells us nothing about these co-factors it is entirely without context and therefore tells us nothing meaningful, it is simply an appeal to emotion designed to override reason. For example is the picture from Botswana or Baton Rouge? Is the victim a homeless drug abuser or a healthy adult? Was the child healthy or severely malnourished?

Additionally, if we don't know how often a severe outcome will occur we cannot measure the risks of that outcome and therefore cannot use the photo as a means by which we make a decision to vaccinate or not.

That is the intent of propaganda. Photos without context do little to inform our decision making. This type of tactic demonstrates the utter lack of scruples in the vaccine fanatic cult. Let's break down the photos one by one:

The mumps one is silly. It is just a child with a swollen neck. The photo often used because most cases are not noticeable to this extent. So an extreme case must be used or there would just be a picture of a normal looking child in a textbook section on the mumps. Mumps is universally acknowledged to be a mild illness

The measles photo is another that can't be taken seriously. It is a child with a rash and a frown. Not very worrisome

Pertussis is another silly one. It is a photo of a child coughing. I wonder where the photo of the crying caused by the pain of injection after injection is.

Rubella or German measles is the next. The photo does not really show much but science says the German measles are, as illnesses go, the mildest of the mild. Just be sure to get them as a child because if a woman gets them while pregnant her child could suffer severe outcomes. Intentionally getting them as a child was what doctors of the 1960's recommended. [2]

Diphtheria photo is probably the most deceptive since it is not a photo of the common form of the illness. It is rather a photo of cutaneous diphtheria. According to patient.co.uk

Cutaneous diphtheria is most often associated with the homeless and those with poor personal and community hygiene.

Hunter's Tropical Medicine describes it this way:

Outbreaks of cutaneous diphtheria have occurred among impoverished or indigent populations, homeless individuals and alcoholics, and in environments with overcrowding and unhygienic living arrangements

So if your child isn't a homeless alcoholic, I wouldn't worry.

Finally we come to polio. The vaccine cultists would not know what to do with themselves if they didn't have to polio card to play. Because they know little about the history of polio, the extent of their argument cannot progress past the point of parroting, "what about polio?" What about polio indeed. First polio was blown out of all proportion by a campaign of fear created by the March of Dimes in order to raise money to fight the illness. [1] Second overzealous doctors caused many cases of polio as a result of their mindless quest to vaccinate children or the era and remove parts of their immune system, specifically the tonsils and appendix. Third paralytic polio only emerged in 1 of 200 infections (1-1,000 in children) and half of those resolved on their own. Fourth polio in epidemic form did not exist before the late 1800's and one must conclude environmental changes precipitated the disease's emergence. Since polio fell about 50% before vaccination became widespread, one cannot say what the state of polio would be today because environmental conditions are again quite different from the 40's and 50's. For example at that time children were regularly exposed to two potent immune suppressants. Lead (scientists at the time said it was as safe as apple pie) and DDT. Lead, from the exhaust of automobiles filled the air while DDT both contaminated the nation's milk supply and was sprayed upon children as they played in the streets.

So to assert polio would return if vaccination against it stopped has no basis in science is nothing more than wild speculation of a handful of vaccine cultists.

In a future post, we'll cover a few more of these illnesses - including the dreaded chickenpox. In the meantime, I wouldn't let one of these pictures scare me into vaccinating anymore than I would let a picture of a car crash scare me from driving to the supermarket.




1 - Patenting the Sun Page 82

The L.A. Times: Wrong on Vaccination

Over the weekend I came a across a laughable editorial in the L.A. Times parroting some common establishment talking points in support of compulsory vaccination. Readers of this blog will be familiar with them since they are trotted out on a regular basis by the vaccine extremists and public health fanatics that seem to have open access to the editorial pages of the nations mainstream media. This particular writer, a Nina Shapiro, a professor at UCLA's Geffen School of Medicine, incorporates a number of shop-worn distortions into her piece attacking vaccine exemptions. She claims illnesses that almost never kill are life-threatening in their nature, suggests that in some schools 80% of the children are unvaccinated and implies that if we're not good little boys and girls, polio is going to come back and get us.

I responded to Ms. Shapiro's nonsense with this comment:

Let me educate you on some facts “doctor.” The measles is not a life-threatening illness. Measles almost never kills. And when it does it is due to a combination of the virus and mitigating factors such as poor nutrition. Pertussis is also almost never a killer. With between 500,000 and one million cases each year only about twenty deaths occur. Sweden abandoned the whole-cell vaccine for 17 years and deaths were apparently so minimal the literature makes no mention of them. So please spare us your wild-eyed hyperbole.

It is no surprise far-left extremists such as those running the LA Times would publish a call to take away a parents right to make medical decisions and hand it over to the state and the public health crazies whose very existence depends on America’s insane vaccination policy

Your “goal” of “protecting children” from mild illnesses by forcing parents to make those children endure a series of painful, risky and never-ending unwanted vaccinations is an idea incompatible with the concepts of liberty upon which this nation was founded. A moral government’s only role is to defends rights – not save lives, decide how much soda we can drink or decide where and when fast-food restaurants can be built. With their rights secure, individuals are perfectly capable of protecting their own children without the heavy hand of government compulsion guiding their every decision. 

What they need protection from is statists and the out-of-control vaccine schedule they propagate

Rather than attack exemptions, we should abolish them altogether and let parents, not self-serving bureaucrats and vaccine shills, decide what is right for their children.

Additionally your claims about unvaccinated children are highly deceptive since even one missed vaccine out of the countless ones that populate the schedule can place a child in your unvaccinated category. Your implication that 80% of children in some schools fall into this category are ludicrous and you should be ashamed for making it.

And where did polio kill millions. Certainly not in the Western world. Even in the worst years it killed perhaps 3,000 with a peak of 6,000 in 1916. And polio was in great measure the result of an out-of-control medical system that indiscriminately removed the tonsils of almost every child of that era. Perhaps you unaware of the fact that the tonsils are part of the immune system and their removal greatly increases the risk of polio. Injections as a result of vaccination also predisposed children to paralytic polio.

Cases were down almost 50% before the vaccine was widely used and they fell further as a result of the disease being reclassified. Additionally much of the nation’s milk supply was contaminated by DDT, a potent immune suppressant, during polio's peak era: the late 40's and early 50's . Polio emerged in epidemic form from nowhere in the late 1800's due to factors too numerous to describe here, and with conditions wildly different today, it is abject speculation to say polio would be today what it was 60 years ago - vaccine or not.

Trust the Liars

You guys are gonna get a kick out of this. Vaccine pusher / drug company shill Amy Pisani the executive director of Every Child By Two @3:08 states "Vaccines save millions and millions of lives every day around the world." Millions means at least two million, so millions and millions means at least 4 million. So according to Amy, four million lives are saved each and every day due to the miracle of vaccination. This is of course impossible. In one year alone 1.46 billion lives would be saved because of vaccines. The population of the entire planet only amounts to about seven billion souls. In just five years time the entire planet would be saved by vaccines. Absurd! Ms. Pisani is yet another unfortunate example of an establishment functionary being either obliviously ignorant about the vaccination issue or incredibly dishonest. I don’t know which is worse. So for parents who have heard the song and dance about how we should only accept immunization information from websites approved by a conflicted vaccine establishment, remember it’s people such as Amy who are running and recommending these sites.

Educating the Uneducatable

Yesterday one of our Facebook members shared our Halloween themed meme  on her Facebook page and got this reaction criticizing  the meme's content:

...one does not prelude the other

and

The vast majority of medically educated doctors, nurses and scientists throughout the world (including your own pediatrician) believe that, properly used, vaccines are generally safe and effective. Are they infallible? Certainly not, no more so than antibiotics or seatbelts. You can also choose to believe that the world is flat. It's your right. It's also my right to call into question illogical comments, like the one posted. It's simply not either or. There is no vast pharmaceutical company conspiracy. If there is then hundreds of thousands of doctors are incredibly stupid and the anti-vaccine amateurs have all the answers. I don't believe that.



Here is my response:

Your friends criticism of this meme fails in several ways. He constructs a “vast pharmaceutical company conspiracy” straw man argument out of a one sentence meme having nothing to do with a “conspiracy.” Then he goes off on a “flat Earth” tangent which has as much relevance as does the “conspiracy” straw man.
Then he puts his faith in a medical system that over and over is found, by the mainstream media and some elements of the system itself, to be overtreating patients with antibiotics, cat scans, x-rays, unnecessary surgery etc. He then creates a false dichotomy in which the only way obedience to the vaccination schedule can be unwise is if “hundreds of thousands of doctors are incredibly stupid and the anti-vaccine amateurs have all the answers” Then assumes something’s safety and effectiveness automatically makes a product valuable to me. (And can you really call the pertussis shot, for example, effective when one now needs six or seven doses over a twenty year period? Especially when a natural infection provides 30 years to lifetime immunity and decreases the chances of transmission during the child bearing years) Let’s not even talk about if they are safe or not. It is a fact when a child is vaccinated; pain is inflicted on him or her. There must be a good reason for this. (Eighteen trips to the doctor during one's childhood for a yearly, painful flu shot seems hardly worthwhile when you're unlikely to get the illness or suffer substantially from it) But in addition to the pain are the accepted common adverse events: high pitched crying, somnolence, fever, irritability etc. Then there are risks such as the chance of contamination (SV40 incident with polio vaccines) or discovering mercury levels exceeded safety limits after a generation has received those vaccines. Then add in something like this recent news which illustrates how little we know about playing around with biological systems

Then combine it with this Institute of Medicine report from 2004:

The report, issued by the IOM’s Immunization Safety Review Committee, found that scientific evidence from epidemiological studies on whether allergy, including asthma, can be caused by multiple vaccinations was conflicting and concluded that the evidence “was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship.” The Committee concluded that epidemiological studies to date “favor rejection of a causal relationship between multiple immunizations and increased risk for infections and for type 1 diabetes.” However, the Committee also concluded that they did find some biological mechanism evidence that vaccines could increase the risk of immune dysfunction in some children that could lead to increased infections and allergy, including asthma. They stated that, “The biological mechanisms evidence regarding increased risk for infections is strong.”

Then add to that the huge increases in the immune dysfunction in the young and ask yourself if tricking that developing system is such a good idea.

So to conclude, nutrition status (part one of the meme) determines to a large degree the severity of these illnesses. On the other hand drugs and medications are detrimental unless they have a benefit that overcomes their risks and side effects. So if part one protects, why take on the risks of part two? As the risk of an illness drops, the benefit of the preventative measure also drops. So yes, if you take the steps mentioned in part one of the meme you may not need the treatments touched upon in part two.

An Open Letter to Lisa Murawski

AB2109, the bill to herd California parents into a doctor's office for a vaccine lecture in order to obtain a vaccine exemption, is getting closer and closer to becoming law. Just this week, based upon an error-ridden fiscal assessment, the bill passed out of the Assembly Appropriations Committee. One interesting point regarding the cost analysis was its blatant incongruence. Initially, in order to scare readers, the report describes a frightening scenario in which parents are abandoning vaccines in droves:

the number of vaccine exemptions has increased dramatically in the last decade, leading to real concern about the loss of "herd immunity" and potential for serious disease outbreaks

Amazingly, the costs to combat such a major problem will, according to the report, be almost no existent. To minimize cost concerns in order to get the bill out of committee, readers are promised the remedy to drag all these exemptors back to the herd will have almost no financial impact on the state. The report asserts:

Any impact on Medi-Cal or Healthy Families Program from a small number of
increased office visits, to the extent any program enrollees seek exemptions and require additional office visits to do so, is likely to be negligible.

Further mistakes and misrepresentation prompted me to contact the author. Here is the text of an email I sent today:


In your analysis of AB2109 you state:

“In contrast, the risk of death if someone contracts measles is about 1 in 500”

Not that you care, but this bit of “information” has no basis in reality. In the pre-vaccine era 3-4 million people contracted the measles with ~400 deaths. In Europe in 2011 about 30K cases were reported with ~9 deaths. Your 1-500 number is fantasy

http://www.cdc.gov/measles/vaccination.html
Measles can be prevented by the combination MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine. In the decade before the measles vaccination program began, an estimated 3–4 million people in the United States were infected each year, of whom 400–500 died,

http://www.epimonitor.net/Measles_Outbreak_in_Europe.htm
A new report by the World Health Organization in the Weekly Epidemiologic Record has documented more than 30,000 cases of measles in the European Region in 2010 and more than 26,000 thru October in 2011. These numbers of cases come after three years of record low levels in 2007-2009. Measles outbreaks were reported from 36 countries in the region in 2011 and about one quarter of the reported cases (28%) in 2011 were hospitalized and 9 children died.

Additionally, your assertion that, “vaccines are generally considered a crowning public health achievement, and are credited with major reductions in morbidity and mortality over the last century,” is laughable. Anyone not parroting the talking points of the vaccine establishment understands huge decline in mortality came well before the age of vaccination.

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

http://www.healthsentinel.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2654:united-states-disease-death-rates&catid=55:united-states-deaths-from-diseases&Itemid=55

I hope parents will not be subjected to this this type of misinformation during their state-mandated vaccine lecture.




Robert Schecter

A Matter of Freedom and Liberty

The state senator behind a new bill stripping vaccine choice from Vermont parents wrote this piece in the Rutland Herald (directly below) defending his proposed legislation. It is both unpersuasive and confused. Our response below points out the flaws in his reasoning and delineates why the legislation should be rejected.


A matter of health and safety


Published: March 29, 2012


Throughout the debate on whether to eliminate the exemption for children to attend school without the recommended vaccines for philosophical reasons, much has focused on the personal stories of parents involved on both sides. We’ve heard from parents of children whose lives have been saved by a vaccine, and we’ve heard from parents who believe strongly that their children do not need immunizations and should not be forced into medical action. I come at this debate with a personal story of my own.

When he was an infant, my son Bartley received the recommended dosage of vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR). It was the typical torturous experience for a parent to see a needle enter your child’s tiny leg, but it was necessary and safe, our pediatrician said. The problem was the unexpected reaction my son had to the immunization — an extremely high fever. Our doctor recommended we forgo the second dose of MMR and today my son is not fully vaccinated against those diseases. I worried last year when Vermont saw its first case of measles in a decade. I’ll worry tomorrow, just in case.

For me it’s always come down to the single question of whether we can save a child’s life by protecting the greater public. We entered into this debate with a lot of questions and have spent the bulk of the session hearing hours of compelling testimony, studying the science behind the facts and listening to passionate parents on both sides of this issue.

No one will tell you it was easy, and no one will tell you that we take this job lightly. But our job is to ensure our decisions have a positive impact on society, and it would be irresponsible for us to look at the facts — a growing number of vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks in Vermont and an increasing number of children being exempted from having the CDC recommended immunizations to enter kindergarten — and not act.

That is where we find ourselves today: We must act to change the course we are on. For me, if that means one less child contracts whooping cough —compared to more than 90 who did in 2011 — it’s enough of a reason to act.

For many of the opponents, there have been further erroneous arguments to try and derail the legislation, claiming constitutional violations under both the U.S. and Vermont constitutions. After careful review by legislative legal counsel, it is clear that both constitutions allow for the protection of religious beliefs under the First Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided that a state may impinge upon the practice of a sincere religious belief only if the state’s interest is of “sufficient magnitude” to justify overriding the religious belief. The Vermont Constitution provides that no authority shall interfere with the free exercise of religion.

In contrast, philosophical beliefs do not receive the same protections. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, since philosophical beliefs are based on a “subjective evaluation and rejection of the secular values accepted by the majority” they do not rise to the level of religious beliefs and thus, not eligible for the same protections. The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that conduct that is “merely a matter of personal preference” does not rise to the demands of religious freedom.

Vermont, like every other state, requires children be vaccinated in order to enroll in school. There are reasons for this mandate. The most important reason is that without immunizations, our community could be plagued by serious, and sometimes fatal diseases that are avoidable. We’ve already seen an alarming rise in whooping cough cases in our state, and those numbers coincide with a high exemption rate.

Eliminating the philosophical exemption is not meant to infringe on parental rights. It’s meant to narrow the scope under which Vermonters can opt out of immunizations and ensure more children receive life-saving vaccines.

While we, as public servants, have an obligation to represent the views of our constituents, so too do we have an obligation to protect the people we serve. Sometimes that means making tough and often unpopular decisions. Passing S.199 to eliminate philosophical exemptions is a matter of public health and safety. It’s that simple.



SEN. KEVIN J. MULLIN





Response: A Matter of Freedom and Liberty

Sen. Mullin

Freedom is the core principle of America. A legitimate government’s role is to ensure that freedom not to “save lives.”  A government whose task is to “save lives” is a government that has no limitations.

“Saving lives” sounds nice but for the government to “‘save lives” it must threaten or initiate violence against innocent people. After all what do you think would happen if a parent declined not to apply for a remaining religious exemption? The parent’s child would be barred from school then the parent would be hauled before a court under threat of force for violating the state’s compulsory education laws. Hiding the specter of state-sponsored violence behind compulsory education laws does not mean the violence is not there.

Besides there is no evidence that the change brought about by this law will ever result in the saving of even one life.

As to a vaccine being “necessary” that’s silly. Food and water is necessary. A vaccine is not. In regards to your worry about one case of the measles, that’s mystifying. In the pre-vaccine era, the nation saw as many as four million cases per year. Yet parents were not “worried” about the illness. Worry about your own kids and we’ll worry about ours.

Free people can save lives. If they see mild illnesses such as the measles, mumps and chickenpox as threats they can choose to vaccinate.

As to your insistence that:

The most important reason is that without immunizations, our community could be plagued by serious and sometimes fatal diseases that are avoidable.

This is preposterous. First the most common illnesses prevented by vaccine (at least for a few years) are all mild, not serious. Besides before widespread mandates polio, whooping cough, diphtheria, measles, mumps and rubella were all controlled by voluntary action.

Then there is your “alarm” over whooping cough. No one besides you and your allies in the public heath establishment is “alarmed” by whooping cough. This proposed legislation after all did not emerge from an overwhelming public demand terrified of whooping cough. And to connect the illness to a few vaccine exemptions is absurd. Perhaps when you were “studying the science behind the facts” you failed to come across the “fact” that the whooping cough vaccine is notoriously ineffective and (along with increased awareness) that ineffectiveness is what is driving so-called outbreaks occurring across the country. As to a rising in whooping cough coinciding with exemptions, did you, when playing scientific researcher, come across the principle that correlation does not equal causation. Or would that principle clash with your manufactured narrative undergirding your attempt to strip parents of their right to raise their children as they see fit?

Your remark that the bill will “ensure more children receive life-saving vaccines” is odd. Vaccines prevent generally mild illnesses and mortality from vaccine-preventable illnesses was in a virtual free-fall long before the advent of vaccination. As such the odds a child will receive a vaccine that actually saves his or her life is astronomically low. The life-saving vaccine mantra seems more spin than substance.

Asserting that, “passing S.199… is a matter of public health and safety,” raises the question of whether the people’s freedom can be taken for the nebulous concept of “public health and safety” It cannot unless a threat to that health and safety is the result of a rights violation perpetrated by another. Not vaccinating violates no rights and as such laws forcing the practice upon the unwilling do not come under the purview of government.

You then imagine you “have an obligation to protect the people you serve.” You do not; you have an obligation to protect people’s rights. There is a difference.  When the government has the power to protect people it does so by hurting either them (for their own good of course) or others (in this case those who do not want medical treatments for their healthy children) When the government can only protect rights, no innocents are targeted - only those who, by their actions; for example reckless behavior, violence, theft, etc.; become the legitimate targets of government power.

The fundamental problem is you do not understand the concept nation was built on: freedom. Rather you are obsessed with and driven by concepts of collectivism, activism and paternalism.

It’s not your role to manage the health of those living in your state. Vermonters are people able to care for themselves, not pets reliant on your benevolent despotism.

There is one final establishment talking point (not raised here) that needs to be addressed: those too young for vaccines or those with poorly functioning immune systems or those undergoing chemotherapy rely on others for protection. First those concerned about a child being too young to get a vaccine can keep those children home rather than compel others (through the state) to act against their will to create a sterile world for them.  Second, while it is terribly sad that some children have health issues their misfortune does not obligate others to act against their better judgment to protect them – especially when that level of protection is ill-defined and likely quite small.

Parents are certainly free to vaccinate based on the above line of reasoning but that action must be voluntary.

Stand up for freedom, Vermont. Reject this misguided legislation.


Robert J. Schecter

California Vaccine Exemption Contact Information

Click this link for information on how to make your voice heard in Sacramento

http://nvicadvocacy.org/members/Resources/CAOPPOSEAB2109RestrictingVaccineExemptions.aspx

Dr. Bob Sears Defending the Right to Vaccine Exemptions

Well-known pediatrician and best-selling author Dr. Bob Sears comes out strongly against a bill forcing parents to hear a vaccine lecture before they can get a philosophical exemption to vaccination.



STATEMENT FROM DR BOB SEARS RE: CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY BILL

California Bill AB2109 Threatens Vaccine Freedom of Choice

The California Legislature is currently considering a bill that would require parents to obtain their doctor’s signature on a government form prior to enrollment in public school if they wish to skip one or more vaccines for their child. Current law allows parents to decline vaccines by signing an exemption form at the school – no doctor’s signature needed. The new law would require “a written statement signed by a health care practitioner that indicates that the practitioner provided the parent with information regarding the benefits and risks of the immunization and the health risks of specified communicable diseases.”

On the surface, this doesn’t seem like a bad idea. It will require parents to prove that they’ve had an informed discussion with their physician. Most parents already have such discussions anyway. However, what gravely concerns me is that some doctors will refuse to sign this form. I know how doctors think. Many doctors strongly believe that vaccines should be mandatory, and that parents should not have the right to decline vaccines. Some doctors are willing to provide care to unvaccinated kids, despite this difference in philosophy. But now the power over this decision will be put directly into doctors’ hands. He or she can simply refuse to sign the form. Doctors who oppose vaccine freedom of choice have been frustrated for years over this issue. Finally, they will have the power to impose their beliefs on their patients. Patients will be forced to find another doctor to sign the form, submit to vaccines, or get kicked out of public school.

Supporters of this bill believe that all doctors will be willing to sign this form, as the signature does not imply agreement with the parent’s decision; it simply signifies that the doctor has provided the parents with information regarding the pros and cons. I disagree. I know for an absolute fact that some doctors will not sign this form out of principle or over fears of liability.

Parents will be forced to “doctor shop” for another doctor to sign their form. This won’t be easy. Some doctors are reluctant to take new patients who don’t vaccinate. Many doctors will be unwilling to sign an exemption form for a new patient or a patient who is only there for one visit (just to get the form signed). Some doctors get financial incentives from insurance companies for having high vaccination rates into their practice; seeing patients to get their form signed will put such bonuses at risk. How many doctors will parents be expected to call? How many “no’s” will a patient need in order to be allowed into school? Natural and alternative health care providers can NOT sign the form; it must be a “regular” medical professional. Some families only see naturopathic or holistic health care practitioners instead of pediatricians. These families will have a difficult time getting the form signed.

And what will happen to those kids who can’t get their formed signed? They will be denied entry into public school.

The sponsors of this bill may have some good intentions, as their primary “public” reason for the bill is to make sure that parents who don’t vaccinate their children are making an informed medical decision under the guidance of their doctor. But it isn’t difficult to see the REAL reason for the bill: to increase vaccination rates in our state by making it more difficult for parents to claim the exemption. But whatever the reason, this bill will likely NOT increase vaccination rates, nor will it create closer partnerships between doctors and patients. It will create anger, financial hardship, animosity, and further mistrust in our medical system.

For those patients who CAN find a doctor to sign their form, these “doctor-patient lectures” are not going to increase vaccination rates: Parents who are seeking a doctor’s signature have already made up their mind. The doctor isn’t going to change it during a ten minute discussion. The time for a doctor to influence parents’ opinion and trust of vaccines is during the initial well-baby checkups, years before such exemption forms even come into play. By the time a child will enter school, the parents have made up their mind to decline vaccines. A lecture from a doctor at this point won’t matter. It’s a waste of everyone’s time and money. At a time when we are trying to decrease health care spending, this bill will add millions of dollars of extra health care visits for families every year. If this unfortunate bill passes in California, the rest of the country will be soon to follow.

And it’s a government intrusion into our personal freedom to make health care decisions for our children.

There are numerous other objections to this bill:

It will cost the parents, or their insurance company, more money for the extra appointments. This could cost our state millions of dollars in extra health care costs every year. We are trying to DECREASE health care spending, not increase it.
This bill may seem like it is designed to create a closer partnership between physician and patients. Instead, it will create more animosity between parents, doctors, and schools, amid a climate of vaccine controversy that is already volatile.
Be aware that the legislators who are sponsoring this bill have received campaign donations from vaccine manufacturers.
Enrollment in public schools may decrease, which will in turn decrease public school funding.

SO WHAT CAN YOU DO?

Call your California Senator and Assemblyperson now and share your opinion. Here’s an easy way. Go to http://nvicadvocacy.org/members/Resources/CAOPPOSEAB2109RestrictingVaccineExemptions.aspx and you will see a summary of the bill, numerous arguments against it, and see contact information for the members of the Assembly Committee on Health who are involved in this bill. You can also register to become a member. It’s free! – see step two below the list of the assemblypersons, or click on this link: http://nvicadvocacy.org/members/Home.aspx. After you register, you can click on AB2109 under the Action Needed Now section. You will be given your California Senator and Assemblyperson’s contact information based on your zip code. You can then call or EMAIL to express your opinion. Thank you for joining me and many others to guard our freedom.


Dr. Bob Sears

Author of The Vaccine Book

TACA Physician Advisory Group

Me and the Bee

Yesterday the Sacramento Bee expressed its unbridled support for AB 2109, the misguided attempt to herd parents into a doctor's office for a vaccination propaganda session before they can obtain a philosophical exemption. This is their editorial followed by our reply. The above illustration reveals the results the confrontation.

Editorial: We all have a stake in healthy vaccination rate

Share

Published: Wednesday, Mar. 21, 2012 - 12:00 am | Page 10A

In San Diego in 2008, a 7-year-old boy who had not been immunized contracted measles on a trip to Switzerland and spread it to his unvaccinated siblings and then his schoolmates.

Parents of many of those children had invoked a loosely written California law that permitted them to decline to have their children immunized based on their personal beliefs. As a result, the public health authorities found that 11 additional people got measles, including two infants. One had to be hospitalized.

California's "personal belief" law must be tightened.

Assemblyman Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, is a pediatrician who clearly understands the science behind vaccinations, and wisdom of communicating facts to parents.

He has introduced Assembly Bill 2109, a straightforward measure that would require physicians or other qualified health care specialists to inform parents of the benefits and risks of vaccines, and to sign forms attesting that they've imparted the information. Parents who still balk at having their child immunized would need to sign forms stating that they've been told of the rewards and risks.

Parents who fear vaccines are trying to do what they think is right. Many have read scare stories and accepted as truth false information from questionable sources. Pan said that among the most difficult fears to confront is that of autism.

There is no link between vaccinations and autism, but fears persist. As the state Department of Public Health points out, the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, the Institute of Medicine and World Health Organization all agree that there is no connection between vaccines and autism.

Of course, vaccines have risk. But the benefits are not readily apparent because vaccines have been so successful. Polio is a rarity, thanks to vaccines. Measles is far less common that it was 45 years ago.

Health authorities blame the 2010 pertussis epidemic in which 10 California babies died in part on under-immunization. The state has since expanded the vaccination requirement. In 2011, there were no recorded deaths attributed to pertussis, also known as whooping cough, something that had not happened since 1991.

As it is, about 2 percent of parents opt out of having their children vaccinated. The number is rising, and is much higher at some schools.

Health authorities become alarmed when vaccination rates fall below 85 to 90 percent. That puts all people at risk, particularly those individuals who for medical reasons cannot be immunized.

Of all 58 California counties, Nevada County had the highest rate of parents of entering kindergartners claiming a personal belief exemption in 2010, says the state Department of Public Health. More than 17 percent of entering kindergartners in 2010 had not been vaccinated.

In Sacramento County, 3.2 percent of entering kindergartners arrived without vaccinations in 2010 because of the parents' beliefs. In 2010, eight Sacramento County schools had opt-out rates of 20 percent or greater, all of them private or charter.

California health officials have shown an ability to carry out effective public health campaigns. Smoking is the best example. Tobacco use has fallen dramatically since California embarked on its anti-smoking effort. The whooping cough campaign is another example. By speaking directly and honestly to parents, physicians can have huge impact.

Pan's measure is intended to provide accurate information, and ensure that parents realize that they place their child and other parents' children at risk by failing to get their children immunized. Pan's bill deserves bipartisan support and rapid approval.

The Bee's past stands

An important issue is that California has a very loose "personal belief exemption," an opt-out for parents that need not be based on religion or medical necessity. Legislators ought to revisit that law. … The bottom line: Kids need to get their vaccinations to protect us all.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/21/4353744/we-all-have-a-stake-in-healthy.html#storylink=cpy

Response: You have no idea what you're talking about

It's not the responsibility of children to risk their health to protect other people from generally mild illnesses.

And whether or not the law is “loosely written" is beside the point. The law should not exist in the first place. It is not the role of government to coerce parents into medicating their children.

Your naive faith in Dr. Pan is laughable. How does he clearly understand vaccination when his press release announcing the bill attempts to tie vaccination-exemption policy to a 2010 pertussis outbreak that was, in reality, a product of a poorly-functioning vaccine. A review emerging from the Infectious Disease Society of America confirmed:

Pertussis Vaccine's Waning Immunity Caused California Epidemic. The…vaccine’s failure to deliver durable infection protection to children aged 7-10 years led to the 2010 California pertussis epidemic

Your paper obviously believes that if a "public health official says something it must be true. Sad.

Perhaps, it's not Pan's great wisdom driving this misguided bill but rather his debt to the state’s healthcare apparatus. He has received over $175,000 from big healthcare over the last two years

And your assertion that there is no connection between autism and vaccination is odd since only one vaccine {MMR] and one vaccine ingredient [thimerosal] has ever been studied to any great extent. How do you know there is no connection? Did a public health official tell you?

And it’s absurd that you should credit new vaccine requirements for a lack of pertussis deaths. Pertussis is a cyclical illness and manifests every three to five years - of course after a large outbreak numbers would naturally be expected to fall. We had an “outbreak” in 2005 and numbers fell naturally in subsequent years. Relying on the vested interest comprising the public health machine to make up for you ignorance is a poor recipe for journalism and explains your editorial's ridiculous conclusion favoring the harassment of parents

As to your distress over a public health official becoming concerned realize freedom (do you know what that is?) is not to be squashed every time a public health apparatchik becomes concerned After all, it’s their job to manufacture concern; their jobs depend on it.

Then you move on to the talking point about a decline in rates putting all people at risk. That is of course preposterous. How can it put ALL people at risk when the vast majority are vaccinated and vaccine work in most people. Besides, you cannot put someone at risk if you do not have an illness - and not vaccinating is not an illness. As such, the unvaccinated place no one at risk. After all, do those of you who have not been vaccinated against the flu this season believe that you, by simply existing, are putting your friends, family and co-workers “at risk?” Infectious illnesses have been transmitted between people since the dawn of civilization. Therefore, the decision to remain unvaccinated can only withhold potential protection from others, not put them at risk. And no one has an obligation to undergo unwanted medical treatments to provide theoretical protection to others.

You conclude kids have to protect everyone by submitting to unwanted vaccines. But that contradicts your assertion that kids who don't vaccinate are putting others at risk. To put someone at risk you must create a risk that did not previously exist. But if a risk did not previously exist, why would they need to protect other from a non-existent risk. So which is it? Protect or put at risk?


*Editors note. Great job by our own Marlene Pitman Duke in the comments section as well.

Pan for Sale

Richard Pan, the sponsor of the bill to herd parents into the doctors' office for a vaccine propaganda session, receives more money from so-called health professionals than from any other special interest. This is not surprising since this is the group pushing and profiting from this misguided legislation. They have purchased Pan for $175,000 over the last two years.


http://maplight.org/california/legislator/1397-richard-pan