Subscribe
Previous Post
Fear of a child becoming autistic from a vaccine or something in a vaccine has led to parents choosing not vaccinating their children and thus making outbreaks of infectious diseases possible. A story in today’s Associated Press reports that parents are now in effect using religion and even lying about their religious beliefs in order to seek a religious exemption from vaccination for their child:
Twenty-eight states, including Florida, Massachusetts and New York, allow parents to opt out for medical or religious reasons only. Twenty other states, among them California, Pennsylvania, Texas and Ohio, also allow parents to cite personal or philosophical reasons. Mississippi and West Virginia allow exemptions for medical reasons only.
From 2003 to 2007, religious exemptions for kindergartners increased, in some cases doubled or tripled, in 20 of the 28 states that allow only medical or religious exemptions, the AP found. Religious exemptions decreased in three of these states – Nebraska, Wyoming, South Carolina – and were unchanged in five others.
The rate of exemption requests is also increasing.
For example, in Massachusetts, the rate of those seeking exemptions has more than doubled in the past decade – from 0.24 percent, or 210, in 1996 to 0.60 percent, or 474, in 2006.
In Florida, 1,249 children claimed religious exemptions in 2006, almost double the 661 who did so just four years earlier. That was an increase of 0.3 to 0.6 percent of the student population. Georgia, New Hampshire and Alabama saw their rates double in the past four years.
Sample letters to request a religious exemption can be found online (here and here for example.
Is seeking a religious exemption from vaccination for a child out of fear of autism doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons?
People choose not to vaccinate for many more reasons besides wanting to avoid giving their children autism. If vaccines were side effect free, made of completely harmless materials, and widely researched for safety other than by the people that promote and make money off of vaccines, then yes, it would be irresponsible not to vaccinate our children. However, that is not the case. I can’t speak for everyone, but most people that I know that choose not to vaccinate have made a decision based on many hours of research, and really know their stuff. These are not all ignorant people making impulsive decisions to get vaccinated just because they heard a rumor about autism. These people care enough about their children to look into issues for themselves and stand up for that what they feel is the best thing for their child, despite the hate and abuse and hardships they may go through to do so. It’s really not fun to go against the crowd, why would parents go through all that trouble just based an uneducated whim?
but to answer the question directly, say a parent solely chose not to vaccinate because they heard vaccines caused autism. Do I think that is insufficient reason? NO. I think that until we know EXACTLY how safe vaccines are, the default needs to be NOT to get them. If there is any doubt, why should we take that risk? What about the risk that vaccines themselves carry?
Before anyone claims that its riskier NOT to vaccinate, for fear of spreading disease, they must first research such specific diseases, and just how dangerous they are. Also, they need to research exactly what is in vaccines and how effective and long lasting they are, and weigh that risk for themselves. It’s a right we should all have. It’s hardly a right now, considering how much bullying people get for it.
I think that being able to opt out of medical care for religious reasons only is irresponsible. How could you as a parent, watch your child die of a perfectly treatable disease because of religious beliefs. I also think that it should be known that according to these exemption laws if your child does end up dieing, you the parent is held liable. I think this is also irresponsible. If you are going to put the parents in jail anyway for murder why don’t we save three lives and just treat the child. All together this is a very touchy issue. Peoples beliefs are strong, impenetrable, and sometimes dangerous. I think if we just kept religion out of medicine all would be well.
1598 days ago
[...] schools or having them stay out of the school system entirely.” Noting that, previously, religious exemptions were usually sought by Christian Scientists, the New York Times points out that “verification [...]
It is very interesting. Strangly I recognize the name Waleen James, but I can’t place where it’s from (I thought it was a health book author). I’m wondering if the name is spelled incorrectly, because I’m only finding the single reference to vaccines in that one article, hardly a good enough reference on it’s own. It’s interesting how differently the states treat the matter.
That’s really interesting and I can see the connection—-but here in New Jersey, it has become much harder to claim such an exemption: School districts are saying that you may have to speak to their attorney if you seek such an exemption.
Kristina,
Not to beat on old horse, but I just read this:
“In Virginia the issue of religious exemption was taken to the state Supreme Court by a Virginia Beach resident, Waleen James. She chose natural health care for her grandson and fought it in court. The court ruled that if it was a strong personal belief that vaccinations could do harm to the child then it could be considered a religious belief and a parent did not have to belong to an organized church that does not practice medical intervention to submit the “religious exemption.”"
http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-ed_sunltrs_11110nov11,0,891228.story
It would seem that in Virginia at least, the courts have determined that strongly held beliefs against vaccine legitimately qualify as a “religious belief” and therefore they don’t need to be a member of an organized church to qualify.
That would certainly explain the actions of many parents, especially when they’re being instructed by the courts to do this.
1655 days ago
[...] in pediatricians’ offices across the country. A small but growing number of parents are even lying about their religious beliefs to avoid having their children vaccinated, thanks in part to the media hysteria created by this [...]
passionlessDrone,
I am familiar with that quote, and I guarantee you will find many other researchers who treated that same paper with a high level of credibility when it was first published. You find exactly the same pattern with the MMR studies in the UK. The irony in the UK is that most of those studies were deemed not credible within a couple of years by the Cochrane Group. In one case, a study author (of the lastest study) admitted that the previous studies were inadequate (the one he/she authored). So this is not unique to Dr. Offit. The sad part is that people continue to reference these studies, because they do not get marked or tagged as non-credible even if the author admits it. Even more amusing is when new studies continue to reference them.
Dr. Offit is definitely a repeat offender. You’ll notice the FUD examples I quoted earlier were mostly from Dr. Offit and there are more outrageous ones that aren’t even worth printing or discussing.
However, one person’s bad quotes don’t make a scientific argument nor do they prove the opposite of what their saying. All you can do for people like him, is ask for and track down the evidence provided and prove the inaccuracies.
If someone presents you with referenceable facts, you have to analyze them independent of the person delivering them. This is a trap that many people fall into on both sides of the debate. Many people refuse to look at studies not published by people with a PhD. Others assume that peer-review = credible. More people immediately disregard any study published by the CDC. None of these are a good critical approach. If presented with evidence, one must evaluate the evidence independent of those that present or generate it.
Reputation only comes into play as it can help you prioritize where you will apply your resources in critically examining presented facts, or when someone expresses an opinion.
That is why I am drawing a line in the sand with the General Medical Community on this topic, because I do not trust their opinion without supporting facts which are sometimes glossed over. My personal experience and research have eliminated any benefit of the doubt they once had on most topics (not all mind you). Thus, I am currently stuck with relying on raw data to make decisions.
Thanks for the specifics. I’ll look at that.
Cliff
PD,
There was a double whammy in the Danish study. There was the one that you mentioned. Another was the change in population criteria. Population criteria were changed from in-patient hospital care, which is highly restrictive, to both in-patient and out-patient care. This change was mid study with no control or correction.
Cliff,
The mandate quote comes from near the end. It is the representative from ACIP (?) who was just listening in on most of the discussion. (I’m at work, so I don’t have the minutes here)
The first quote is just one of many, where when asked about possible problems (and this conference was shortly after another conference discussing the toxicity of aluminum I believe) regarding metals used in vaccines, where they had no idea of the potential impact.
It am very concerned that no one had ever deemed to look into any of these toxicity issues, nor had they considered an issue. It is surprising, because these substances had been used for a long time, and evidence that they are toxic and harmful biologically has been accumulating for decades.
Hi Schwartz –
Your unwavering logic and refusal to jump into rhetoric is very refreshing for this topic.
Though I can do very little to add to the remarks already left, one particular quote has bothered me quite a bit, from none other than the frequently quoted Paul Offit.
In regards to the Denmark study on MMR and measles, wherein a drastic change in diagnostic criteria occurred in mid study and were not corrected for, he says:
“It is difficult to conceive of a larger, better constructed, more definitive study than that
performed in Denmark.”
http://www.immunize.org/safety/boxa.pdf
Why on Earth should we trust this person to make good choices regarding the health of our children?
Take care!
- pd
Oh, the Simpsonwood Conference. Those two statements were right at the beginning, no?
I do think that some of the uncertainty issue was addressed, but I think it wasn’t as much a sweeping effect as suggested, but limited to barrier-passing levels.
And not knowing the additive and inhibitory effects aren’t as drastic as suggested per se, because there’s still a lot that can be known. Neither addresses the general metabolic rate, which was demonstrated to be faster and with less damage than methyl mercury (but, again, let me find that study). So there are inferences that can be made from the numbers on methyl mercury, which would have a more drastic effect, as means of using the worst case scenario. Cast in that light, the lack of data can only get better, not worse.
But let me see if I can find that mandate quote again, from who, and in what context before I address it.
Cliff
Bah, I apologize on the name; that’s actually a typo, not a conception error.
Actually, I’m not sure that all vaccines aren’t harmful per se. In fact, if you would point to a specific vaccine, give me the numbers for it, and let me have a look, there might be a specific issue. However, the discussion has been, as far as I could tell, over perhaps many of the vaccines that might not be “necessary”.
What we more really do disagree on is what counts as adequate. You want a whole different level of access than what in my opinion is practical and possible, given constraints. Things can be demonstrated in clinical, short term studies, and we have a disagreement there too.
I’ll be a little honest with you. I do agree we are arguing over statistics, and I’ve given you a resource that might help in that regard, but some of the childhood diseases have been traditionally known to manipulate populations on a large scale. The elimination (note not eradication; that term only applies to smallpox) of many childhood disease were linked to populations being able to grow and sustain current size. That’s why, when comparing it to complications occurring with vaccines, I tend to fall with the vaccines being more safe.
In regard to the number of recording vaccine-caused deaths, that’s true, I do seem to dismiss that. I do think that the numbers are higher for asthmatics and others like them than for those complications. But I don’t really dismiss them; I would be all for people looking more for contraindications and how they occur.
Ah, autism, yes; I was low-functioning, of the self-damaging caliber, of what me considered the worst level. And it was frustrating. But was it death? Nooooooo… I don’t even think it would be fair. Not at all. I had a life, there were times to enjoy in it, it probably looked worse to my parents than to me. So I don’t think that’s true at all. I will hold, from personal experience from what is considered the worst, that autism is better than death.
I mentioned looking into contraindications, and I think there is evidence, of the genetic sort, which allows us to look ahead to that with some success.
I do think conditions are such that we do have a relative degree of safety issue that’s not far off. Many of the vaccination rates are in the high eighties/low nineties. That’s pretty damn close to the threshold levels (again, see the review).
I would say if you have a doctor who is clueless in that regard, get another. There are plenty of doctors that are good, and plenty that aren’t, and I do think it is important to make sure of that. Especially so if you care as much as you do about your child. If anything, it is good for the parent to raise concerns and see if the doctor knows of scientific data to back up his point. I don’t think that, if the doctor is much of a real doctor to be making these distinctions, the parent will really know more about the immunological system.
Here in the U.S, there is a tendency both ways on that, in different circumstances. “Emergency” can be used for a whole lot of things, like taking property away.
I do agree, except that the argument for “health” can go both ways. But if you have an issue of the tragedy of the commons at stake, then government control can occur. It’s not something out of reach, because we (in the U.S, don’t remember or know where you are) have things like State of Emergency and quarantine, where the government really can take control in face of a potential crisis.
Cliff
Cliff,
These interfaces are definitely challenging.
“I do agree that forgoing vaccines in cases of a contraindication is a very wise thing to do.”
Damage is done to children who don’t have any known contraindications and I challenge you to determine conclusively if a 2 month old is sick and when in doubt they vaccinate. I can speak from experience, that it is nearly impossible until children are quite a bit older to really understand what is going on (doctor or parent) and I pay close attention to these things.
This goes back to one of my main issues with the ages in the vaccine schedule.
I suspect that many immocompromised children are only discovered after reacting to vaccines since doctor’s don’t ever test for that kind of thing beforehand. And I also suspect specialized followup would only occur if the parents insisted, since reactions to vaccine are often just accepted without further analysis.
If the system worked in a way where children were actually analyzed and tested before vaccine application (assuming we had actually studied why certain people react, but no such analysis is actually done), there is a good chance I would be participating.
I can’t totally disagree with the tragedy of the commons point. I suppose if the safety aspects weren’t yet addressed, and I felt confident that the overall vaccination rate was dropping and I also felt confident that there was a real danger of increase in incidents that would harm a significant number of people, then I might change my mind with regard to specific vaccines. But that decision would require significantly different circumstances than we have today.
And yes, that is a sort of experiment on it’s own (as someone will undoubtedly point out), but it is not any riskier than the mass experimentation that is currently ongoing IMO.
As for parents knowing more than the doctors point. In many cases I’m sure you’re right, but on the other hand, the doctors never know that much anyways. For parents who pay attention, I guarantee they will be far better atuned to the health of their child, and they will also know how to effectively leverage their doctor to gain insight or analysis into areas that medicine excels in. For the majority of parents that don’t, the verdict is debatable, I agree.
However, I don’t believe we would ever as a society be able to remove responsibility for children’s health from the parents. Until that happens, it has to remain their choice as no doctor will take that responsibility and neither will the state. Kind of like removing the right of ignorant people to vote. We’re stuck with that reality in our democratic society.
Bah, more bad spelling in the post awaiting moderation.
Cliff
I do agree that forgoing vaccines in cases of a contraindication is a very wise thing to do.
However, I do note that it does follow something of a tragedy of the commons; too many people chose to benefit (assuming their is a benefit) by not vaccinating, it will create circumstances that can harm a whole lot of people.So it’s not really a fully independent decision, in my mind. The argument works a whole lot like the tragedy of the commons used in environmental sciences. That doesn’t go against contraindications, though; there can reasonably be exception for those who clearly need it per circumstance.
And I also challenge, in degree, parents knowing more about their children than anyone else on the planet in the realm of physiology. Honestly, parents don’t have that kind of access. They have been around their child such to have a reasonable intuition into their child’s motives and thoughts, but no such access to the child’s immunological system.
Cliff
Cliff,
Your post is long, I’ll try to get through it all, but my kids may interrupt so it may be a couple of posts.
First, it is actually Mr. Schwartz, not Ms. :)
I’ll state where I think we agree first:
1) Vaccines can be beneficial and efficacious to the general population
2) They can help eradicate certain diseases
I know we disagree on the topic of vaccine safety, and I also don’t agree that taking one successful vaccine and applying it’s success to all vaccines is valid. Just like using one successful drug as an example and assuming that all drugs are effective and safe is not valid. The strategies of different vaccines vary and I do not agree with certain strategies (Prevnar, and HPV are examples) and I don’t believe that type of strategy has even come close to being proven to be safe or overall effective to date.
I also disagree that the efficacy of all of the vaccines has been statistically proven. The flu vaccine efficacy is still widely debated, as is the new HPV – we won’t know for years. I don’t think your examples of disease mutations appropriately explain the recent failures in MMR or Pertussis vaccine because they did not discover any new strains to my knowledge.
On the safety issue, we are solely relying on the “General Medical Community’s” word on the matter because the safety analysis in not adequate and the tracking is not adequate at all and the short term tracking is acknowledged by that same community to be insufficient for any meaningful analysis. You feel we’re dealing with facts, but if the analysis hasn’t been done, then we’re only dealing with educated guesses. In many of the cases, that is not good enough for me. IMO, there is also ample evidence of conflict of interst so the purported facts require extra scrutiny. The russian roulette scenario all depends on the risk rates you happen to belief (because there is a lack of facts). I can just as easily view getting a vaccine shot as playing Russian roulette.
We probably also disagree on which vaccines are really required for the whole population (mumps, rubella, Hepititus B) etc and I think that’s pretty much because we don’t agree on the statistics. We also need real statistics on manufacturing issues with vaccines. There is a real history of failure on that front as well. For how many years was the FDA warning Chiron to fix their problems until the Brits stepped in and put a stop to things? But who is going to fund a study into vaccine manufacturing processes — so it will forever remain unscientific. How many years did it take fully understand the impact of SV40 many decades ago? Again, I feel the attitude is skewed away from safety. There are transcripts from Australia where the doctors decided to continue shipping vaccine batches even knowing they were contaminated. This is similar to the attitude I observed in the CDC conference.
As for the morality issue, we’re arguing over statistics again. Yes, they have an elevated risk from most diseases. You can’t quantify the risk that they will die because my child isn’t vaccinated. And I still can’t get accurate numbers from specific vaccine risks. Again, the only numbers I have are for the most part taken from an industry funded safety study with a very short followup. So without those numbers we can’t weigh the balance of the risk and as I’ve explained the “general medical community” has not earned my trust. The morality question eventually boils down to a balance of risk, the actual risk to immunocompromised people being extremely difficult to calculate. We would also need accurate numbers of how many immunocompromised people there are.
“and thus the money was then spent in a futile manner while people die. That’s at least dangerous, and again it assumes that we must remove the quality in order for the right to be equally protected.”
Again, you ignore the real damage that vaccines cause to a small number of children (not Autism). These are not hypothetical scenarios, but a known and measured events. Yet you callously disgard them as a casualty of war on the assumption the minority’s medical problem can’t ever be solved. You can’t even determine the overall risk reduction to the immunocompromised from the reduction in disease X. That scenario does not appear any more moral than the one I’m proposing. (It also touches on one of the main philosophical flaws that I feel allopathy has fallen into, but that’s a much different discussion)
“Also, hold off on the “healthy people not autistic” thing, will you, for now? I’m healthy, autistic, and proud, and I have my reasons for saying so, but that’s another discussion.”
Noted. I apologize for the offensive statement.
“And yes, autism is a whole lot better than many an individual dying from a childhood disease as made worse by another condition.”
Interesting, but I don’t believe all Autistics are anywhere near the same in their symptoms or quality of life. My understanding is that many of them suffer from painful symptoms throughout their lives. But this argument goes straight back to the same balance of risks and numbers of people affected, which we don’t agree on.
“And, no, they aren’t directing because vaccines are more profitable, directly anyway; vaccines are known to directly help, where research does not.”
That statement is not at all true. Profits directly affect areas of research, that is a well known fact. There was a decline in vaccine research for many years for this actual reason. Recently, the research has surged mainly because of the profit potential from Gardasil and the proven profitability of Prevnar.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/business/yourmoney/26ping.html
As for the conference, I read it through around 5 years ago, and I’ll look it up again, but I have to finish some work tonight. From my memory though, I’m pretty sure the responsible scientists familiar with chemical toxicity were imported into the conference and were not usually involved in vaccination decisions.
I think this quote from the conference sums up part of the issue nicely:
“As an aside, we found a cultural difference between vaccinologist and environmental health people in that many of us in the vaccine arena have never thought about uncertainty factors before. We tend to be relatively concrete in our thinking.” Then he says, ” One of the big cultural events in that meeting —was when Dr. Clarkson repetitively pointed out to us that we just didn’t get it about uncertainty, and he was actually quite right.”
The other pervasive issue was the constant referal to lack of safety data:
“We held the aluminum meeting in conjunction with the metal ions in biology and medicine meeting, we were quick to point out that in the absence of data we didn’t know about additive or inhibitory activities.”
They also have no idea on the effects of ethylmercury despite having used it for decades and knowing that strongly related compounds were known to cause significant issues.
This one is a kicker:
” My mandate as I sit here in this group is to make sure at the end of the day that 100,000,000 are immunized with DTP, Hepatitis B and if possible Hib, this year, next year and for many years to come, and that will have to be with thimerosal containing vaccines unless a miracle occurs and an alternative is found quickly and is tried and found to be safe.”
This was after basically stating that they should never have done the research in the first place.
Kristina, thank you for this valuable information. I’ve posted before regarding my child’s reaction to the Pertussis vaccine.
Autism arguments aside, there are medical reasons for not getting a specific vaccine.
Here is the link for contraindications according to the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/vac-admin/contraindications-vacc.htm
I can’t remember where I first found the link for this chart, perhaps here on your site.
My point is that in my child’s case, for medical reasons, he should not receive the pertussis vaccine again. He should not have received it after the first one but our pediatrician did not think that our child’s reaction was anything to be alarmed about. By the CDC’s own standards, he was wrong but because we were a military family and he was a military doctor, he can’t be sued by us. My son went on to have two additional pertussis vaccines with an increasingly worse reaction to each one.
Eventually he was hospitalized with encephalitis after his final pertussis vaccine.
Even the CDC recognizes situations in which individuals should not be vaccinated and I’m not sure that all pediatricians are even aware.
If I had it to do over, my son would never have been vaccinated. I had mumps, measles and chicken pox as a child and every other kid I knew did too. I’ve never known anyone who had a horrible reaction to the actual diseases.
There are some vaccinations worth the risk – polio, etc.
I should have been more responsible and not have been intimidated into allowing him to be given shots that would send him to the ER.
Frankly, I’m so tired of this whole argument. Parents know their own children more than any doctor does and should be able to make decisions accordingly.
I’d home school my child before ever having him subjected to a vaccination containing mercury or a pertussis vaccine.
I don’t have any responsibility to other people’s children. Oh horror! When I think of all the nasty crap that goes around the schools that there are no vaccinations for.
They found lead in the drinking fountains at the schools in our county. That’ll be the day when the school system can tell me what shots to give my child, I don’t care if I have to join a cult, if it means that I spare my child encephalitis.
It’s my decision. After following bad advice from the experts, I now do what I think is best for my child.
And what about people minding their own business? That should be mandatory when you have a child, worry about your own kid, let everyone else worry about their own.
This whole topic just brings out the worst in me.
I’m the person who got pertussis and nearly died from it.
I know the kid I got it from. And the other 10 kids at the point of infection who got it. I was the only one to get really ill…and the only vaccinated one.
But theyre all immunocompetant NOW. In 20 years time, who knows?