I got some very good news a few weeks ago concerning HB 2009, a bill that would have mandated vaccine injections for every child in our state unless they had a medical or religious exemption.  I wrote a blog post about the danger of passing this bill that you can read here.  https://theantelopediaries.com/2015/02/20/to-vaccinate-or-not-another-take-on-the-issue/

The bill did not meet a deadline to advance to the House floor for a vote.

I personally wrote letters to eleven legislators, three of them my local representatives.  I contacted two radio announcers at a local radio station.  I did what I could to voice my concern about mandating ANY injections whatsoever, much less a pharmaceutical product for which the pharmaceutical companies face no legal liability.  (Oh yes.)  I did a lot of reading and research, and a lot of thinking about this subject.  Here is the final version of the letter that I sent our legislators.

March 5, 2015

Dear [State Legislator]:

I am writing to you to urge you to vote no on HB 2009 concerning eliminating the personal belief/philosophical exemption for vaccination.

I am not writing to you about the pros or cons of vaccinations. However, I will mention three things. First, there is a federal court set up to hear complaints about injuries resulting from vaccines and this court has awarded damages (http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/vaccine-programoffice-special-masters.) Second, there is a national reporting system for people who observe adverse side effects following a vaccination (https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index). Third, there is a website that supports vaccination choices and has a lot of information about vaccines (http://www.nvic.org/).   Before you vote on this bill, I urge you to look at these sites to be aware of some adverse effects from vaccinations.

My main purpose in writing to you is to communicate why it is important to keep the personal belief exemption. Regardless of your stance on vaccination, I believe this mandate is a dangerous precedent. It doesn’t matter if the injection consists of pure saline. It is a dangerous precedent to force an injection on anyone (ironically, we do that in death penalty cases).

Around the country, states are forcing people to ingest a product they do not want or risk losing their jobs, access to education, or worse. We should not be forced to ingest a product we do not want, a product that, surprisingly, the manufacturer faces no liability in manufacturing. Any petitions for damages are made to a federal court. The damages come from a surcharge on vaccines. I ask you- why would there be a surcharge on vaccines for damages if there were no risk of harm? Is it because the vaccination manufacturers know that some people will experience adverse effects?

The state should not mandate ingestion of a product for which there is not only an absence of a guarantee, but documented evidence of adverse side effects, including serious injury and death.

Eliminating the personal belief exemption does not make sense. Belief is belief, whether it comes from a personal conviction or a religious one. This bill proposes that a group’s idea is acceptable but an individual one is not? Is that not antithetical to American liberty? Isn’t that why people came to this country?

Vaccination is a personal health issue, and there is a spectrum of views about what to do. Some parents have had one child experience adverse reactions, such as fever, high pitched screaming, seizures, or severe lethargy (to name a few of the symptoms), following a vaccination and delay or forego vaccination for their younger child. In some cases, parents have been told that these reactions are “normal” and doctors do not report these symptoms to VAERS. Given that these side effects occur with regularity, the state can advise and recommend, but they should not insert themselves in what is clearly a personal health care decision.

The pro-vaccine mandate group says this law is necessary to protect people who are medically compromised or who can’t tolerate a vaccination. (That should be a red flag right there- some people cannot tolerate a vaccination.) The debate we should be having is what to do about that. Are there other options?

We are a day’s flight away from any part of the world. Are we going to force vaccination documentation from everyone who enters this country?

What about religious groups? Don’t they travel? If they have a religious exemption, wouldn’t they also pose a risk?

We do not live in a sterile environment. The CDC reports there were 722,000 hospital acquired infections in 2011 of which 75,000 people died (http://www.cdc.gov/HAI/surveillance/index.html). This data comes from self-reports by hospitals, so the total could be higher. This is significantly higher than all the measles cases in the U.S. this century. And let’s not forget that people older than 52 years of age in this country probably had the measles. In fact, millions of Americans had the measles. Yes, there were complications, as there are with any disease, but there have also been complications from vaccines, as VAERS and the federal court system for vaccine injury attests. Why would we have a federal court system set up if there were no adverse effects from vaccinations? Clearly, people’s bodies handle vaccines differently, just as with any other drug.

All people have a right to live and be healthy, but all people also have a right not to partake in something they deem harmful. Some of the ingredients in vaccines are harmful, including aluminum, formaldehyde, thimerosal, and polysorbate-80.

The question is to what extent should we be mandated to protect the welfare of someone else at the risk that we will be harmed? To what extent should we be mandated to take a product we do not want and without our consent? What is considered reasonable to ask of someone? How can we be considerate of everyone’s rights, the healthy and the less healthy?

Here’s an idea. Why doesn’t the pharmaceutical industry work on vaccines that are more tolerable to the immune-compromised? Why not support that research so that individuals can have a choice about how to take care of their health?

The list of mandated vaccines keep growing and there are more vaccines in development. While on the surface this seems like a good idea, we do not know the effect of these vaccines together in the system. What we know is that some people will experience adverse effects.

The current vaccination schedule is not what most adults had as children. By the time I was fully vaccinated in 1980, I was immunized against seven diseases in 23 doses: diptheria, tetanus, mumps, rubella, polio, measles, and pertussis.

Twenty-three doses. Does that sound like a lot?

Today, the recommended vaccination schedule is 49 doses of 14 vaccines before the age of six years. Since most adults are not “fully” vaccinated by modern standards, how would people feel if they were mandated to get 26 injections to get caught up? Older cohorts would need even more. If adults are not willing to inject this many doses on themselves, why are we forcing this many injections onto children?

Why should it be mandated to begin vaccinating on the day of birth against a disease that is transmitted through sex and needles? (Hepatitis B.)

The rotavirus is another vaccine that some parents take issue with. Essentially, as my doctor described it, it is a bad stomach bug- fever, vomiting, diarrhea, and dehydration. Remedy: rest and hydration. In most developed countries, this is not a problem. In poor countries, it is because of unsafe drinking water. Diarrhea kills children in undeveloped countries, and apparently some people found it alarming enough to recommend vaccinating in this country. By that logic, malnutrition is endemic in third world countries as well. Perhaps we should get rid of junk food on store shelves?

Polio is a disease that has very visual connotations, but we stopped administering the oral polio vaccine in this country in 2000 because some people developed the disease itself. We cannot predict at this time which individuals will respond well to vaccination and which will have complications. What we know from longitudinal studies is that adverse reactions occur.

Let’s not be so arrogant as to say medicine is without error or that vaccines are 100% safe.

As a public health issue, there are some more issues to consider. Given that vaccine immunity can wane over time, some of us may be susceptible to the diseases we were vaccinated against in our childhoods. Furthermore, newly vaccinated individuals can shed the disease, leaving the vulnerable still susceptible to the disease. Thirdly, some individuals who are vaccinated get the disease they were vaccinated for either from the vaccine or because the immune system did not respond adequately to the vaccine. At this time, we cannot predict with absolute precision how an individual’s immune system will respond to a vaccine.

The pharmaceutical companies are aware of this. They and doctors cannot be held liable for adverse reactions to mandated vaccinations. The pharmaceutical companies even won a ruling in the Supreme Court in 2011 that held that even in cases where the vaccine could have been made safer, pharmaceutical companies cannot be held liable.

Why are we being forced to ingest a product the manufacturer does not stand behind? That is akin to being forced to drive a car that has no warranty.

By implementing a mandate, why does the state legislature have more trust in vaccines than the companies that make them? This is a dream come true for pharmaceutical companies who harbor none of the costs and have mandated customers.

In addition to concerns about safety, some parents have objections to vaccines against diseases they had as children and passed through without problems. For example, the vaccine against chicken pox is part of the vaccination schedule. In some states where the vaccine is mandatory, children are not allowed in school without the chicken pox vaccine.

If it is not so already, it could one day be illegal to have the chicken pox.

The chicken pox is to my generation what measles was in my parent’s generation. It was common. It would be ironic if Washington becomes a state where it is legal to die but illegal to have the chicken pox.

If this bill becomes law and someone develops the chicken pox, would this transmission be investigated? Would we have a system where some people are allowed to have the chicken pox (those with exemptions) while others not? Would parents face prosecution if they do not qualify for an exemption? What are the legal repercussions if this bill becomes law?

It is not necessary to agree with someone’s personal health care decision about vaccination. It is necessary to understand that parents have concerns and to respect these concerns. We are not crazy and we are not lazy. We are concerned because as parents, the ingredients in vaccines and the quantity of doses goes against our better instincts. As parents, we are not convinced of the long- term safety of this vaccination schedule because this “longitudinal study,” so to speak, is ongoing.

We are concerned because there is a correlation, if not causation, in the rise of diseases such as autism and learning disabilities. The CDC now says 1 in 50 children in this country is diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. If 1 in 50 adults were diagnosed with a problem, it would be an epidemic. Instead, the 100 or so individuals diagnosed with measles is an epidemic while the 80,000 children diagnosed with autism each year (if one averages the annual birth rate in this country to 4 million individuals) have been pushed out of the spotlight.

We are concerned because doctors can’t explain why there has been a spike in autism cases, correlating with a rise in mandated vaccinations, but tell us it doesn’t have anything to do with vaccinations.

Then what is it?

“We don’t know but trust us” is not a plausible explanation to most educated parents, and that is where many pockets of concern about vaccinations are located.

I urge you to retain the personal/philosophical belief exemption for vaccinations and vote no on HB 2009.

Sincerely,

———-

[theantelopediaries]

This morning I woke up indignant about something that happened yesterday.

It concerns vaccines. I’m not going to argue about the pros or cons of vaccinations. There are plenty of articles about that. I am going to mention three things. First, there is a federal court set up to hear complaints about injuries resulting from vaccines (http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/vaccine-programoffice-special-masters.) Second, there is a national reporting system for people who observe adverse side effects following a vaccination (https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index). Third, there is a website that supports vaccination choices and has a lot of information about vaccines (http://www.nvic.org/).

With information at your fingertips, I leave it up to you to make up your mind.

And that is exactly the point.

Yesterday, Washington State’s Health Care and Wellness Committee passed House Bill 2009 that would eliminate the personal belief (also known as philosophical) exemption for vaccines. If this bill passes, it means that the state can mandate that your child receive an injection without your consent.

That’s right. The state is inserting itself into your healthcare decisions because it doesn’t trust that you will make the right decision, i.e. the same decision this collective body would make.

Since when does my family’s health care decisions become a matter for the state to decide and force me to implement?

Regardless of your stance on this issue, I believe this is a dangerous precedent. I don’t care if the injection consists of pure saline, it is a dangerous precedent to force an injection on anyone. (We do that in death penalty cases.)

The state apparently thinks parents cannot choose what is best for their children, not unless you’re in a group. If you have an objection to vaccines based on a personal belief, that may soon be illegal. But if you belong to a religion that believes the same thing, that, so far, is allowed.

A group’s idea is acceptable but an individual one is not? Is that not antithetical to American liberty? Why did we come to this country?

The state is chipping away at our personal liberties, and I wouldn’t be surprised if, after another outbreak, they go after the religious exemption as well, as some other states in our great nation are already doing.

I strongly feel that belief is belief, whether it comes from a personal conviction or a religious one. I can share my personal beliefs and what I would do in certain situations, but under no circumstances could I ever conceive of forcing anyone to do the same. Why does a group of individuals in the state legislature feel they can impose their beliefs on someone? This is a very personal issue for many, and there is a spectrum of beliefs. The state can advise and recommend, but they should not insert themselves in what is clearly a personal health care decision.

The pro-vaccine group says it’s to protect people who are medically compromised and can’t handle a vaccination. The debate we should be having is what to do about that. Are there other options? We are what- a day’s flight away from any part of the world? Are we going to force vaccinations on everyone who enters this country?

And what about those religious groups? Don’t they travel? If they have a religious exemption, wouldn’t they also pose a risk?

Unfortunately, I also see it as a conflict of personal liberties. People have a right to live and be healthy, but people also have a right to not partake in something they deem harmful. The question is to what extent should we be mandated to protect the welfare of someone else?  What is considered reasonable to ask of someone?  How can we be considerate of everyone’s rights, the sick and the healthy?

Here’s an idea. Why doesn’t the pharmaceutical industry work on vaccines that are more tolerable to the immune-compromised?

Oh that’s right, the market isn’t as large and it wouldn’t be as profitable.

I guess the state legislature feels it’s okay to force people to take “moral” action when others don’t.

For people that choose not to vaccinate, part of the issue is that they are not willing to inject themselves or their children with what they see as toxic substances (and there are toxic substances in vaccines) to protect someone else.

For those that are out of the loop regarding vaccines, the current vaccination schedule is not what most adults had as children. By the time I was fully vaccinated in 1980, I was immunized against seven diseases in 23 doses: diptheria, tetanus, mumps, rubella, polio, measles, and pertussis.

Twenty-three doses. Does that sound like a lot?

Today, the recommended vaccination schedule is 49 doses of 14 vaccines before a child is 6 years of age. Would you feel comfortable if the government mandated 26 additional doses of injections for all adults?  (It would be more for older cohorts and less for younger ones, since the number of vaccinations have increased).  After all, we are no longer “fully” vaccinated by modern standards.  Why would we want to mandate this many vaccinations for a six year old when we are weary of doing this to ourselves?  And the vaccination schedule continues into adolescence and adulthood.

Why is it acceptable to begin vaccinating on the day of birth against a disease that is transmitted through sex and needles? (Hepatitis B, if you’re wondering.)

Some parents object to vaccines against diseases they had as children and passed through fine. For example, the vaccine against chicken pox is part of the vaccination schedule. In some states where the vaccine is mandatory, children are not allowed in school without the chicken pox vaccine.

If it is not so already, it could one day be illegal to have the chicken pox.

The chicken pox is to my generation what the measles was in my parent’s generation. It was common. There are always complications, as there are with any disease, but there are complications with vaccines as well.  We know this from VAERS, the reporting system for adverse vaccine reactions and from compensation paid to victims by the federal court set up for this purpose.

The rotavirus is another vaccine that some parents see as unnecessary. Essentially, as my doctor described it, it is a bad stomach bug- fever, vomiting, diarrhea, and dehydration. Solution: rest and hydration. In most developed countries, this is not a problem. In poor ones, it is because of unsafe drinking water. Diarrhea kills children in undeveloped countries, and apparently some people found this alarming enough to recommend vaccinating in this country.  Malnutrition is endemic in third world countries as well.  If this is the precedent, are we going to do blood tests to make sure each child and adult has the proper nutrients in their system?  How much is too much control over our bodies?

Polio is a disease that has very visual connotations, but we stopped administering the oral polio vaccine in this country in 2000 because there is a small chance the recipient can develop the disease itself, which actually happened in this country.

Let’s not be so arrogant as to say medicine is without error.

You don’t have to agree with the arguments. You just have to understand that parents have concerns. We are not crazy and we are not lazy. We are concerned because as parents, it goes against our better instincts to inject our children with vaccines that include toxins, particularly since their brains and immune systems are still developing.  As parents, we are not convinced of the long- term safety of this vaccination schedule because this “longitudinal study,” so to speak, is ongoing.

And during this “longitudinal study,” vaccine manufacturers and doctors who administer vaccines are immune from prosecution if the recipient experiences injury or death, which, from parental accounts, we know has happened.  My batteries have a warranty.  Why don’t pharmaceutical companies stand behind their product?  Isn’t that a bit odd that they don’t?  Isn’t that, I don’t know, concerning?

Did you know that there is a small surcharge for every vaccine to cover compensation for people injured by vaccines?  So people pay for vaccines, pay for damages from vaccines, and vaccine manufacturers and doctors face no liability.  How clever.

We are concerned because there is a correlation, if not causation, of diseases such as autism and learning disabilities. The CDC now says 1 in 50 children in this country is diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. If 1 in 50 adults were diagnosed with a problem, it would be an epidemic. Instead, the 100 or so individuals diagnosed with measles is an epidemic while the 80,000 children diagnosed with autism every year (if one uses a birth rate in this country of 4 million individuals annually) have been pushed out of the spotlight and into the shadows.

We are concerned because doctors can’t explain why there has been a spike in autism cases, correlating with a rise in mandated vaccinations, but tell us it doesn’t have anything to do with vaccinations.

Then what is it?

“We don’t know but trust us” is not a plausible explanation to most educated parents, and that is where many pockets of concern about vaccinations are located.

Indeed, it goes against our very gut, and now the legislature could soon pass a bill making it illegal for parents to choose what they believe/feel/are convinced of is in the best interest of their children.

I urge people to give this serious consideration, regardless on what side of the debate you are on, because someday, perhaps something you believe in will be taken away.