CA personal exemption for vaccines stricken except for homeschoolers

[TranquilMind]

Respectfully...

 

Would you mind if I put this into the analogy I posted earlier for self-driving cars? I am certain that over time science will show that self-driving cars are safer than cars driven by people.

 

Do you think if a family purchases a product designed to protect their family, and that product works better if everyone buys it but also works better than nothing if others don't follow suit, the purchaser the right to make everyone purchase the same product so they can be safer?

 

Do you agree that some people are more vulnerable drivers (new drivers, the elderly, people who must drive when tired, people with distracting babies and toddlers) and therefore you must protect their safety by purchasing this new car? And rather than encouraging that purchase through education and marketing, it must be the law?

 

I'm against someone saying, "Hey I bought this new car and it's safer than my old human-driven car, so that's good. But you know what would make me even safer? If everyone had to drive this car! Lots of people are in car accidents and this would help! I'm going to pass a law that everyone has to buy this car!"

 

There are so many modern products that people around me could buy that would make me safer. If everyone were required to own a cell phone I could have more assurance someone could call 911 if I were unconscious. If every building was required to have an automated external defibrillator, I would be safer. If every car was required to have a backup camera and cars without one were banned, I would be safer. And so on.

 

To me there's a world of difference between government doing things to make people safer (traffic planning, crosswalks, auto safety standards) and legislatively making a person purchase (and inject!)  a product from  a particular company.

 

I suppose one could try and draw an analogy to the time when CA made all drivers start carrying proof of insurance. Of course, people drive without insurance all the time. But this is easier to enforce because almost all kids in K and 7th go to school. But the analogy falls apart when you realize that someone can decide to stop driving at any time if they don't want to purchase insurance. Once someone has been vaccine damaged, they can't go back. And you can't always tell ahead of time who that will happen to, which is why the responsibility to make that decision should be with the parents or guardians.

 

Just saying again that I'm not implying my kids are vaccinated or unvaccinated. I like to keep my kids' medical info off of message boards.

Good analogy.  I can see future application to many different kinds of products and services that should be enforced "for your safety and convenience". 

No thanks.  I will decide.  I might like your self-driving car but I'm going to fight for the right to retain that decision instead of demand that everyone do what I want. 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

OR some of them have legitimate concerns.   You don't seem to allow for that possibility.  All those parents are just conspiracy theorists apparently. 

 

Diseases are popping back up because some vaccines are not effective.  So the answer to that is "give it again regularly!"  How is this rational? 

 

There are indeed fearmongers doing the same thing on both sides.  It is important to sift the facts enough to at least attempt to see where the truth lies, and not just take it on face value, or God forbid, ignore your instincts, as many parents have been ordered to do.   

 

No, diseases are popping back up because too many people are choosing not to vaccinate. See Global Situation for more details.

 

We selective/delayed on vaxes for a time, with our family doctor's "permission" and support, because we were working out some health puzzles for our kids which I am not going to explain at this time. The point is that we and our doctor totally, 100% understood that the reason we could make that decision was because of herd immunity. Not because the VPDs aren't dangerous but because our children were unlikely to encounter them in a community where the vast majority had been immunized. (Note: Various medical specialists that our children needed to see also understood the situation. We never had any trouble at all with medical exemptions. I never endured a sneer or an eyeroll, even.)

 

Whether that 47% is entirely accurate for CA or not, it's just true that there is a percentage below which a community cannot fall without disease outbreaks resulting. The few who can't be immunized RELY on everybody else to get it done, so they won't get the diseases.

 

The same people who can't tolerate the vaxes are very likely to be unable to tolerate the diseases themselves. They need measles to be eradicated because measles is dangerous to them, see?

[AdventuresinHomeschooling]

It's simple to say find a new physician, but the reality is that pediatricians are under pressure to only accept patients who follow the vaccination schedule. They also can receive financial incentives for their patients who are vaccinated on time from the insurance companies, and the government (HHS) is currently discussing whether they should offer monetary incentives for promoting vaccines. This makes it more difficult to find physicians who are looking at the individual patient versus the herd. Many patients can be pressured. If there is a problem with the vaccine, the physician and drug manufacturer are not held responsible. This is why I was told that my son should have the particular vaccine in question to see if he would react to it first instead of just taking our family history with the vaccine and medical issues. What does the physician have to lose? Are there good physicians out there who still think of their patients as individuals? Sure. But it can take a lot of time to find them sometimes and they may or may not be in your network, location, etc. That is a whole other health care discussion. But my point is that something that is easy to say is not always easily done. And it is not getting any easier. Physicians advocate for the herd. Vaccines are good for the herd, Imo. Who advocates for the individual child? It has to be the parent. It's the same thing in education where parents advocate for the best approach to educating their child instead of what is best for the group as a whole. This law does remove some parental rights whether one thinks it is justified or not.

 

I think the logic of exempting homeschoolers is an argument I have encountered in the pro vax camp that if you don't want to vaccinate your child, keep them at home. Not understanding homeschooling fully, they don't realize that homeschoolers are not always only at home.

 

I don't think the homeschooling exemption negates the argument that education is a right. The legal understanding is that public education is a right. Otherwise, all children would have a right to access private education, which they do not unless they have the means.

[idnib]

Just adding another link from the MIT Technology Review to show how a purchaser of a self-driving car (in the future) will be safer if others have self-driving cars nearby as well. The autos will be communicating with each other regarding traffic, braking, speed, steering wheel position, etc. 

[albeto.]

OR some of them have legitimate concerns.   You don't seem to allow for that possibility.  All those parents are just conspiracy theorists apparently. 

 

What have I said that gives you the impression I don't allow for the possibility of legitimate concerns? 

 

:huh:

 

Diseases are popping back up because some vaccines are not effective.  

 

This is a factually untrue statement. 

 

There are indeed fearmongers doing the same thing on both sides.  It is important to sift the facts enough to at least attempt to see where the truth lies, and not just take it on face value, or God forbid, ignore your instincts, as many parents have been ordered to do.   

 

Instincts aren't nearly as reliable as objective facts as derived from decades of evidence, collected, experimented, and falsified. We can see the evidence of this in reality of the non-vaccinated population succumbing to preventable diseases. When those who cannot be vaccinated for rational reasons are at the mercy of those whose "instincts" decide what works and what doesn't (against all evidence to the contrary), we have a social problem on our hands. Your solution seems to be to encourage people to decide which source of information suits them best, the rest of society be damned. Arguments like this should be called out and exposed for their faults and dangers. That's not "sledgehammering," that's civil discourse at work. 

[RootAnn]

Love the self-driving car analogy. Think it is interesting as the mechanical engineering stuff I've been getting recently seems to promote the idea that no one will WANT to have a non self-driving car when they become available. The people publishing this stuff seem to think no one will want to be able to drive their own car (or buy a car that doesn't have this self-driving feature as an option, at least). It is 'easier' and will make you 'safer,' so everyone will want it. Far from the truth, IMO!

 

I don't know what the law in California will entail. I do know what I do as a practicing pediatrician in a state that allows medical and religious exemptions but not personal exemptions. If someone has a history of chickenpox that was not diagnosed by a physician, we have them get titers to prove immunity if they do not want to get the vaccine. If we have documentation that a physician diagnosed chickenpox we can write in "Had disease and the date" where we would normally record the vaccine date. 

 

Interesting. My kids all had the chickenpox disease & our pediatrician simply took my word for it after the fact. All their medical records indicate they had it in a certain month/year.

[TranquilMind]

No, diseases are popping back up because too many people are choosing not to vaccinate. See Global Situation for more details.

 

We selective/delayed on vaxes for a time, with our family doctor's "permission" and support, because we were working out some health puzzles for our kids which I am not going to explain at this time. The point is that we and our doctor totally, 100% understood that the reason we could make that decision was because of herd immunity. Not because the VPDs aren't dangerous but because our children were unlikely to encounter them in a community where the vast majority had been immunized. (Note: Various medical specialists that our children needed to see also understood the situation. We never had any trouble at all with medical exemptions. I never endured a sneer or an eyeroll, even.)

 

Whether that 47% is entirely accurate for CA or not, it's just true that there is a percentage below which a community cannot fall without disease outbreaks resulting. The few who can't be immunized RELY on everybody else to get it done, so they won't get the diseases.

 

The same people who can't tolerate the vaxes are very likely to be unable to tolerate the diseases themselves. They need measles to be eradicated because measles is dangerous to them, see?

Ok. If you say so.  But for vaccination on (whatever today's current schedule is, which may change tomorrow) everyone would be dead, apparently. 

[TranquilMind]

Love the self-driving car analogy. Think it is interesting as the mechanical engineering stuff I've been getting recently seems to promote the idea that no one will WANT to have a non self-driving car when they become available. The people publishing this stuff seem to think no one will want to be able to drive their own car (or buy a car that doesn't have this self-driving feature as an option, at least). It is 'easier' and will make you 'safer,' so everyone will want it. Far from the truth, IMO!

 

 

Interesting. My kids all had the chickenpox disease & our pediatrician simply took my word for it after the fact. All their medical records indicate they had it in a certain month/year.

Same here.

 

Rational doctors who trust parents are few and far between these days, from what I read and see. 

[TranquilMind]

It's simple to say find a new physician, but the reality is that pediatricians are under pressure to only accept patients who follow the vaccination schedule. They also can receive financial incentives for their patients who are vaccinated on time from the insurance companies, and the government (HHS) is currently discussing whether they should offer monetary incentives for promoting vaccines. This makes it more difficult to find physicians who are looking at the individual patient versus the herd. Many patients can be pressured. If there is a problem with the vaccine, the physician and drug manufacturer are not held responsible. This is why I was told that my son should have the particular vaccine in question to see if he would react to it first instead of just taking our family history with the vaccine and medical issues. What does the physician have to lose? Are there good physicians out there who still think of their patients as individuals? Sure. But it can take a lot of time to find them sometimes and they may or may not be in your network, location, etc. That is a whole other health care discussion. But my point is that something that is easy to say is not always easily done. And it is not getting any easier. Physicians advocate for the herd. Vaccines are good for the herd, Imo. Who advocates for the individual child? It has to be the parent. It's the same thing in education where parents advocate for the best approach to educating their child instead of what is best for the group as a whole. This law does remove some parental rights whether one thinks it is justified or not.

 

I think the logic of exempting homeschoolers is an argument I have encountered in the pro vax camp that if you don't want to vaccinate your child, keep them at home. Not understanding homeschooling fully, they don't realize that homeschoolers are not always only at home.

 

I don't think the homeschooling exemption negates the argument that education is a right. The legal understanding is that public education is a right. Otherwise, all children would have a right to access private education, which they do not unless they have the means.

The bolded is absolutely true.  Sort of removes the incentive from the doctor to consider the patient as an individual, doesn't it?  That's why the parents need to retain that control.   You have to allow for financial biases.  The parents don't have that bias as they do not benefit financially from protecting their child as they see fit, whether with or declining any particular vaccine. 

[TranquilMind]

It's simple to say find a new physician, but the reality is that pediatricians are under pressure to only accept patients who follow the vaccination schedule. They also can receive financial incentives for their patients who are vaccinated on time from the insurance companies, and the government (HHS) is currently discussing whether they should offer monetary incentives for promoting vaccines. This makes it more difficult to find physicians who are looking at the individual patient versus the herd. Many patients can be pressured. If there is a problem with the vaccine, the physician and drug manufacturer are not held responsible. This is why I was told that my son should have the particular vaccine in question to see if he would react to it first instead of just taking our family history with the vaccine and medical issues. What does the physician have to lose? Are there good physicians out there who still think of their patients as individuals? Sure. But it can take a lot of time to find them sometimes and they may or may not be in your network, location, etc. That is a whole other health care discussion. But my point is that something that is easy to say is not always easily done. And it is not getting any easier. Physicians advocate for the herd. Vaccines are good for the herd, Imo. Who advocates for the individual child? It has to be the parent. It's the same thing in education where parents advocate for the best approach to educating their child instead of what is best for the group as a whole. This law does remove some parental rights whether one thinks it is justified or not.

 

I think the logic of exempting homeschoolers is an argument I have encountered in the pro vax camp that if you don't want to vaccinate your child, keep them at home. Not understanding homeschooling fully, they don't realize that homeschoolers are not always only at home.

 

I don't think the homeschooling exemption negates the argument that education is a right. The legal understanding is that public education is a right. Otherwise, all children would have a right to access private education, which they do not unless they have the means.

nm   Double post. 

[SeaConquest]

Respectfully...

 

Would you mind if I put this into the analogy I posted earlier for self-driving cars? I am certain that over time science will show that self-driving cars are safer than cars driven by people.

 

Do you think if a family purchases a product designed to protect their family, and that product works better if everyone buys it but also works better than nothing if others don't follow suit, the purchaser the right to make everyone purchase the same product so they can be safer?

 

Do you agree that some people are more vulnerable drivers (new drivers, the elderly, people who must drive when tired, people with distracting babies and toddlers) and therefore you must protect their safety by purchasing this new car? And rather than encouraging that purchase through education and marketing, it must be the law?

 

I'm against someone saying, "Hey I bought this new car and it's safer than my old human-driven car, so that's good. But you know what would make me even safer? If everyone had to drive this car! Lots of people are in car accidents and this would help! I'm going to pass a law that everyone has to buy it!"

 

There are so many modern products that people around me could buy that would make me safer. If everyone were required to own a cell phone I could have more assurance someone could call 911 if I were unconscious. If every building was required to have an automated external defibrillator, I would be safer. If every car was required to have a backup camera and cars without one were banned, I would be safer. And so on.

 

To me there's a world of difference between government doing things to make people safer (traffic planning, crosswalks, auto safety standards) and legislatively making a person purchase (and inject!)  a product from  a particular company.

 

I suppose one could try and draw an analogy to the time when CA made all drivers start carrying proof of insurance. Of course, people drive without insurance all the time. But vaccination is easier to enforce because almost all kids in K and 7th go to school. But the analogy falls apart when you realize that someone can decide to stop driving at any time if they don't want to purchase insurance. Once someone has been vaccine damaged, they can't go back. And you can't always tell ahead of time who that will happen to, which is why the responsibility to make that decision should be with the parents or guardians.

 

Just saying again that I'm not implying my kids are vaccinated or unvaccinated. I like to keep my kids' medical info off of message boards.

 

I appreciate the question. Not having given it much thought (I'm on my second glass of wine at the start of a holiday weekend), my first thought is that vaccines can only protect those who do not get vaxed when herd immunity is reached (which I understand varies by illness). So, while a Google car might be safer, it isn't that there must be a critical mass of them for protection for all.

 

I would also add that the Obamacare decision set up an interesting precedent re the government forcing you to make a purchase for your health. One could argue that, by making health insurance a requirement (or you pay a penalty), the government is not only trying to make you safer and healthier, but also those around you (with respect to contagion).

 

Anyway, I will give it more thought. I'm sure the wine will help. :)

[idnib]

I appreciate the question. Not having given it much thought (I'm on my second glass of wine at the start of a holiday weekend), my first thought is that vaccines can only protect those who do not get vaxed when herd immunity is reached (which I understand varies by illness). So, while a Google car might be safer, it isn't that there must be a critical mass of them for protection for all.

 

I would also add that the Obamacare decision set up an interesting precedent re the government forcing you to make a purchase for your health. One could argue that, by making health insurance a requirement (or you pay a penalty), the government is not only trying to make you safer and healthier, but also those around you (with respect to contagion).

 

Anyway, I will give it more thought. I'm sure the wine will help. :)

 

The analogy to herd immunity would be that people who drive their own cars are more protected on the road because other people have self-driving cars. A vaccine does not require a critical mass to confer protection, but the protection improves by suppressing outbreaks if a critical mass is reached. A Google car with accident avoidance may be safer than a regular car, but it's even safer if everyone has accident avoidance and the cars are telling each other about wrecks or speeders in the area. That data would be most reliable if it actually came emanated from the wrecked or speeding cars themselves.

 

Is that enough to make everyone buy a Google car by law? IP for legally required products is a whole other issue, at least to me.  :)

 

I agree on the Obamacare, and it was upheld by the Supreme Court. I believe SB277 will be too, if they agree to hear it. There is the penalty option on Obamacare, so despite the fact that getting medical care may reduce the illnesses of people around you, you can pay to opt out. That would have been an interesting option in the vaccine bill.

[Momto4inSoCal]

I think self driving cars will be the norm in the future due to safety. Whether that is due to laws or natural progression (ie videos to cds) I don't know. At that time we might look back on it in the same light we see car seats. I remember jumping around cars, sitting in the floor of the car, sitting in the back of my dads pick up truck. No one questions whether or not we should put our kids in car seats in todays era. Our parents didn't seem to think it was that big of a deal though. I don't know how I feel about vacines. I personally prefer delayed vaccines. I don't like the government telling me what I can or can't do but my feelings on vaccines may be due to the era and the culture around me of moms against vaccines.

[momto2Cs]

What was the rationale for exempting home educated children with no medical issues from being vaccinated? 

 

Bill

 

Because theoretically we keep them at home, closeted away from the rest of the world at all times, so they pose no threat. :glare:

[idnib]

Because theoretically we keep them at home, closeted away from the rest of the world at all times, so they pose no threat. :glare:

 

Won't the viruses land on us when we open the basement door to toss down math books and sandwiches? While we do purchase supplies online, we still leave the house to try on denim jumpers and overalls, due to costly restocking fees. They should have thought this through better.

[ElizaG]

No one is saying that you must follow the CDC schedule, or that you need to have every vaccine in the pipeline going forward. In fact, the PBE was expressly grandfathered into the law for any new vaccine added to the CA-mandated list.

I'm having trouble seeing the logic here.   It seems to negate the arguments based on "herd immunity," if they're going to allow PBEs for all future vaccines.  Or is this clause only temporary, until the vaccines have been more widely tested?

 

At the same time, the current schedule includes vaccines for which "herd immunity" doesn't seem to be a significant consideration, e.g. for diseases that aren't spread person-to-person (tetanus), or for which current research doesn't appear to support the idea that vaccination reduces transmission rates in the community (acellular pertussis).  But as I understand it, there will be no PBEs allowed for these.

 

So, under the law, parents will be denied choice when it comes to certain medical procedures that would only involve their own child's health, while being allowed to opt out of other, similar procedures that will likely be thought to involve risks to both the child and the community.

 

Has anyone explained the rationale for this?

[mamakelly]

No one is saying that you must follow the CDC schedule, or that you need to have every vaccine in the pipeline going forward. In fact, the PBE was expressly grandfathered into the law for any new vaccine added to the CA-mandated list.

Line 11 of the final bill- "any other disease deemed appropriate by the department...." I'm concerned about exactly that, who knows what they will decide is appropriate!?

 

The PBE was not grandfathered in for new vaccines. It was grandfathered for kids who currently have a PBE. If they have one, they keep it until they change schools or move to a new grade "level" K and 7th are the big ones. So if you have a 5th grader with a PBE, they won't be required to be updated on shots until you move schools or they get to 7th grade.

[SeaConquest]

Line 11 of the final bill- "any other disease deemed appropriate by the department...." I'm concerned about exactly that, who knows what they will decide is appropriate!?

 

The PBE was not grandfathered in for new vaccines. It was grandfathered for kids who currently have a PBE. If they have one, they keep it until they change schools or move to a new grade "level" K and 7th are the big ones. So if you have a 5th grader with a PBE, they won't be required to be updated on shots until you move schools or they get to 7th grade.

 

Respectfully... you are incorrect.

 

120338. Notwithstanding Sections 120325 and 120335, any immunizations deemed appropriate by the department pursuant to paragraph (11) of subdivision (a) of Section 120325 or paragraph (11) of subdivision (b) of Section 120335, may be mandated before a pupil’s first admission to any private or public elementary or secondary school, child care center, day nursery, nursery school, family day care home, or development center, only if exemptions are allowed for both medical reasons and personal beliefs.

[RosieCotton]

Also, since it is related, there are tort lawyers pushing for negligence liability and civil damages awards where unvaxed people transmit communicable diseases to others. This article popped up on my American Bar Association feed.

 

 

 

How can unvaxed people transmit diseases to others who are vaccinated if they are protected from the vaccines?

This part does not hold water with me and makes some of what I hear in the media sounds so ridiculous.

Truly the only people unvaxed can transmit to are the unvaxed.

 

I'm not being punchy I would really like someone to answer this with logic and actual facts not opinions or what you want the answer to be.

 

You can't claim the vaccines work and then accuse those who don't have them of making those that do have the vax ill with what the vax was supposed to protect you against.

 

Are we just talking about babies in the first 12 months? Ok I can see that a possibility, but again, that is not how this agenda is pushed out there. It is "everyone is at risk because of those who do not vax" which to me sounds paranoid, pushing fear, and totally contradictory -- which causes my red flags to go up.

 

I'm for parents rights to decide, vax on a slower schedule like the one I had growing up and I love my constitution.

 

This bill is a test to see how it goes. Then it will follow nationwide, without exceptions, home schoolers too.

 

 

 

[RootAnn]

How can unvaxed people transmit diseases to others who are vaccinated if they are protected from the vaccines?

 

I'm not being punchy I would really like someone to answer this with logic and actual facts not opinions or what you want the answer to be.

 

No comment from me on vaccines in general or this particular CA law, but pertussis vaccines are one I've always seen as having a lower effectiveness rate than others, so I'll use that in my explanation below. (All mistakes & comments are mine. Please feel free to add or correct them - with links, when possible. I'm an engineer by training & not a physician.)

 

The measles vaccine, for example, is said to be about 93% effective after the first shot and 97% effective after the second. That means that there are still 3% of kids who could still get measles after two doses of the vaccine. It is the 7% of one-vaxed or 35 of the two-shot-vaxed that would be vulnerable to coming down with the measles after being exposed. These particular individuals would believe they were immune to measles because they would have had at least one of the recommended vaccinations.

 

The pertussis vaccine (or vaccines, since there are multiple varieties), on the other hand, has a much lower rate of effectiveness. The CDC says its effectiveness is about 70% after receiving the Tdap and that rate decreases with each year after receiving it -- dropping to 30-40% after four years. The DTaP, the one most kids receive when they are young, is 80-90% effective after one dose. If all five doses are received, it is supposedly 98% effective immediately after the fifth dose, but the vaccine obviously doesn't give lifetime immunity as its effectiveness drops each year after that. A study released last year discusses this drop in effectiveness if you want to read more about it.

 

Thus, it is completely possible to be able to contract pertussis after having received all the recommended shots if 1) it didn't "take" with you or 2) it has been awhile (even only a year) since you had your most recent booster. However, you would THINK you were okay and may not get to the doctor or go in for treatment since you would believe you were immune. (I haven't seen the study which says you get a milder case if you've been vaxed, but I have read that belief for several of the diseases which have vaccinations available.)

[wapiti]

Thus, it is completely possible to be able to contract pertussis after having received all the recommended shots if 1) it didn't "take" with you or 2) it has been awhile (even only a year) since you had your most recent booster. However, you would THINK you were okay and may not get to the doctor or go in for treatment since you would believe you were immune. (I haven't seen the study which says you get a milder case if you've been vaxed, but I have read that belief for several of the diseases which have vaccinations available.)

 

AFAIK, this is roughly correct, that while the pertussis vaccine may prevent symptoms, it doesn't necessarily prevent the spread.  FWIW, the pertussis discussion can get complicated as there have been changes with regard to both the vaccine and common strains.  From the below, it sounds like more research is needed on the newer form of the vaccine with regard to the strains we are trying to protect against (IIRC the much older, whole-cell form had issues).

 

http://www.cdc.gov/maso/facm/pdfs/BSCOID/2013121112_BSCOID_Minutes.pdf  (see page 6) Eta, I'm having a tough time trying to post this link - try joining http://www.cdc.gov   and   /maso/facm/pdfs/BSCOID/2013121112_BSCOID_Minutes.pdf  (for anyone wanting to click through, the links seem to work in my old post here http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/549512-pertussis-outbreak/?p=6319175)

 

• Resurgence of Pertussis. As reported at the May 2013 BSC meeting, the recent resurgence in pertussis cases has been associated with waning immunity over time in persons who received the acellular pertussis vaccine (which is administered as the pertussis component of DTaP vaccine). However, a recent study suggests another explanation for decreased vaccine effectiveness: an increase in Bordetella pertussis isolates that lack pertactin (PRN)--a key antigen component of the acellular pertussis vaccine. A study that screened B. pertussis strains isolated between 1935 and 2012 for gene insertions that prevent production of PRN found significant increases in PRN-deficient isolates throughout the United States.2 The earliest PRN-deficient strain was isolated in 1994; by 2012, the percentage of PRN-deficient isolates was more than 50%.

 

To assess the clinical significance of these findings, CDC used an IgG anti-PRN ELISA and other assays (PCR amplification, sequencing, and Western blots) to characterize 752 B. pertussis strains isolated in 2012 from six Enhanced Pertussis Surveillance Sites3 and from epidemics in Washington and Vermont. Findings indicated that 85% of the isolates were PRN-deficient and vaccinated patients had significantly higher odds than unvaccinated patients of being infected with PRN-deficient strains. Moreover, when patients with up-to-date DTaP vaccinations were compared to unvaccinated patients, the odds of being infected with PRN-deficient strains increased, suggesting that PRN-bacteria may have a selective advantage in infecting DTaP-vaccinated persons

 

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm (pertussis vaccine type/brand may matter) Eta, again with the link difficulty - try joining  http://www.fda.gov  and   /NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm

 

 In response to concerns about the side effects of the whole cell pertussis vaccine, acellular vaccines were developed and replaced the use of whole-cell pertussis vaccines in the U.S. and other countries in the 1990s; however, whole-cell pertussis vaccines are still used in many other countries.

 

none of the vaccinated animals developed outward signs of pertussis disease after being exposed to B. pertussis. However, there were differences in other aspects of the immune response.  Animals that received an acellular pertussis vaccine had the bacteria in their airways for up to six weeks and were able to spread the infection to unvaccinated animals. In contrast, animals that received whole-cell vaccine cleared the bacteria within three weeks.

 

This research suggests that although individuals immunized with an acellular pertussis vaccine may be protected from disease, they may still become infected with the bacteria without always getting sick and are able to spread infection to others, including young infants who are susceptible to pertussis disease.

 

full study here:  Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate model http://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/787.full.pdf

Pertussis has reemerged as an important public health concern since current acellular pertussis vaccines (aP) replaced older whole-cell vaccines (wP). In this study, we show nonhuman primates vaccinated with aP were protected from severe symptoms but not infection and readily transmitted Bordetella pertussis to contacts. Vaccination with wP and previous infection induced a more rapid clearance compared with naïve and aP-vaccinated animals. While all groups possessed robust antibody responses, key differences in T-cell memory suggest that aP vaccination induces a suboptimal immune response that is unable to prevent infection. These data provide a plau- sible explanation for pertussis resurgence and suggest that attaining herd immunity will require the development of improved vaccination strategies that prevent B. pertussis colonization and transmission.

 

Eta, I am curious about further research, which is obviously called for.  So far all I have found is this recent study in Pediatrics http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2015/04/28/peds.2014-3358.abstract  finding that "Tdap protection wanes within 2 to 4 years"  To add, apparently this finding is "disappointing" because "case-control studies tend to inflate efficacy" (from Epidemic Pertussis and Acellular Pertussis Vaccine Failure in the 21st Century, http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/135/6/1130.extract, May 2015 - wish we had access to the full text).

 

I have other things to do today (including but not limited to a lot of immune system reading), but I find this small, new study interesting, in which children prone to ear infections had insufficient responses to Dtap vaccinations

 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26138025  IMO this makes a great deal of sense, with the correlation involving the cited immune system deficiencies (cd27).

[MotherGoose]

There are people who cannot become vaccinated because they have a clearly documented medical reason, immune system problem, or other issue that makes vaccination impossible.  Or they are too young.  

 

My sister is a doctor, and has seen people with these diseases (pertussis, diptheria, horrible ones that used to kill lots of people but have been mostly eradicated).  She works with some children whose need heart transplants, and gets particularly incensed at the ones who want the kids on the heart transplant list, but who don't want their kids vaccinated because of a fear of the vaccine, not because they have a medical reason not to vaccinate.  She does not allow them on the list unless they vaccinate, inasmuch as it is in her power, and frankly tells the parents she's not going to waste a heart on a child and have them die of a preventable disease.  She was also extremely irritated when  a mother brought a child, who was old enough to be vaccinated, into the clinic who had pertussis, I believe it was, and was not vaccinated.  The child exposed the entire office to the disease, and they all had to take treatment as a preventive because, yes, sometimes the vaccines don't work.  But most of the time they do.  This included infants who were very sick with heart problems and who were too young to be vaccinated.  

 

Vaccines are not perfect, for sure, and I am not sure how I feel about the government taking away more of our parental rights, but I do hope that everyone who chooses not to vaccinate has a real understanding of these diseases and how they can kill.  As for herd immunity, yes, they don't work on some people, but they work on MOST people, and it's the best thing we have going to fight these diseases.  My OB tested me for immunity against measles when I became pregnant because measles are particularly dangerous when you are pregnant.

 

These diseases are worse than just a case of the chicken pox many of us are old enough to remember, or a case of the measles or mumps our parents were fortunate enough to survive.  Our parents don't remember many of these things, although my mother does remember people having polio and how public pools were shut down in the 1950s to prevent the spread.  I am afraid that we, as a society, have become complacent about giving vaccines because no parent in the US today has had to fear, really, that their child will die of an infectious disease.  It used to be very common and may become common again.   

[ElizaG]

Vaccines are not perfect, for sure, and I am not sure how I feel about the government taking away more of our parental rights, but I do hope that everyone who chooses not to vaccinate has a real understanding of these diseases and how they can kill.  As for herd immunity, yes, they don't work on some people, but they work on MOST people, and it's the best thing we have going to fight these diseases.  

The thing about acellular pertussis -- as I'm understanding it -- is that we don't have evidence that the current vaccine "works" from a herd immunity POV.    When they talk about it being successful, they mean that vaccinated people are less likely to get sick, or, at least, they're less likely to get the severe and characteristic symptoms associated with pertussis.  But it doesn't appear to stop the organisms from floating around in the population.   So, in this case, it seems dodgy to claim that the vaccination is being made mandatory for the sake of unvaccinated people. 

 

I looked into this when we were expecting our most recent baby.  For the last few years, some organizations have been recommending "cocooning":  having all family members get a pertussis booster, and keeping the baby away from people who haven't had one.   The thing is, the research that's now coming out is suggesting that this doesn't reduce the risk of newborns getting pertussis. 

 

IDK how they're going to solve this, but we need to be realistic that there's a range of efficacies with these vaccines, and in some cases, their workings are not that well understood.

 

Another issue that hasn't been raised is that some parents believe that certain common childhood illnesses tend to have a beneficial long-term effect, at least with children who are well-nourished and properly cared for (e.g., kept resting in bed when they have the mumps).  For them, even if these particular diseases became common once again, they might prefer that their children catch them rather than have the vaccine.   While one might not agree with them on this, they can't be considered to be taking advantage of "herd immunity," because to them, it's actually a disadvantage.  

 

In some cases, I tend toward this opinion myself, but have gone ahead with the vaccine, in the hope of helping to protect other children who might be more vulnerable to serious complications due to their families' poor diet and lack of ability to care properly for the sick at home.  This was a sacrifice on our part.   It's a hard decision, and I think other people's motivations have to be considered thoughtfully, not painted with a broad brush.

[MotherGoose]

The thing about acellular pertussis -- as I'm understanding it -- is that we don't have evidence that the current vaccine "works" from a herd immunity POV.    When they talk about it being successful, they mean that vaccinated people are less likely to get sick, or, at least, they're less likely to get the severe and characteristic symptoms associated with pertussis.  But it doesn't appear to stop the organisms from floating around in the population.   So, in this case, it seems dodgy to claim that the vaccination is being made mandatory for the sake of unvaccinated people. 

 

I looked into this when we were expecting our most recent baby.  For the last few years, some organizations have been recommending "cocooning":  having all family members get a pertussis booster, and keeping the baby away from people who haven't had one.   The thing is, the research that's now coming out is suggesting that this doesn't reduce the risk of newborns getting pertussis. 

 

IDK how they're going to solve this, but we need to be realistic that there's a range of efficacies with these vaccines, and in some cases, their workings are not that well understood.

 

Another issue that hasn't been raised is that some parents believe that certain common childhood illnesses tend to have a beneficial long-term effect, at least with children who are well-nourished and properly cared for (e.g., kept resting in bed when they have the mumps).  For them, even if these particular diseases became common once again, they might prefer that their children catch them rather than have the vaccine.   While one might not agree with them on this, they can't be considered to be taking advantage of "herd immunity," because to them, it's actually a disadvantage.  

 

In some cases, I tend toward this opinion myself, but have gone ahead with the vaccine, in the hope of helping to protect other children who might be more vulnerable to serious complications due to their families' poor diet and lack of ability to care properly for the sick at home.  This was a sacrifice on our part.   It's a hard decision, and I think other people's motivations have to be considered thoughtfully, not painted with a broad brush.

And I am afraid everyone does not really consider the ramifications of the reality of getting one of these serious diseases when deciding not to be vaccinated.  

[AdventuresinHomeschooling]

Thank you to RootAnn and others who gave some great information.

 

I knew the acellular pertussis was weaker, and the disease has resurged in recent years. I am reminded of a time a few years ago when I took my six week old baby to church and someone was admiring him and then said, "oh, I will keep my distance since I have pertussis." I was livid! Why you would be walking around in a public setting with pertussis is beyond me! But I think it shows that we don't always realize who is and is not protected. I would venture that many adults or older children had not had recent boosters, and there are people who cannot receive certain vaccines who were in that service that day. But we tend to assume it's only babies at risk.

 

I fully understand the motives of those who want to protect society as much as I understand the motives of those who are cautious with vaccines. I wish many physicians took more time and care with their patients individually. I am greatly concerned with parental rights and have appreciated the discussion.

 

Time will tell how this affects homeschooling in California and vaccine laws in other states. Thanks for the good conversation!

[purpleowl]

I had a discussion with someone who lives in another state but has lived in CA before about this. This person claims that this law is essentially not going to mean much, since religious freedom is guaranteed under the US constitution and people who don't want to vax their kids for religious reasons will have that right recognized on the Federal level, even if the state says otherwise. According to this person, "informal religious beliefs" not associated with any particular religion would also fall under this, and such informal religious beliefs could be as simple as "I think vaccines are unnatural". That is, according to this person, because the government does not get to decide which religious beliefs make more sense than others, and all a person who doesn't want to vax has to do is demonstrate that their beliefs are sincerely held.

 

Can anyone comment on this, especially SeaConquest as a retired lawyer? I would think people would have a hard time passing "vaccines are unnatural" off as a religious belief when it is, in fact, a personal or philosophical belief. (That is why personal exemptions existed, no? I'd be interested to know whether what this person says about religious exemptions being enforced at the Federal level is true or not. 

 

In Welsh v. United States (1970), the Supreme Court ruled that even though Welsh did not profess belief in any god, his strongly held belief against participating in wars qualified him for exemption from the draft based on the First Amendment (freedom of religion).  That's where the "the government can't decide which beliefs qualify as religious or not" comes in.

 

As to whether this law will hold up against the First Amendment or not, I don't know, but I tend to think not.  I suspect that's why the law provides an exemption for homeschoolers - since education is guaranteed to all, they had to find a way to say "but if you REEEEEEALLY don't want to vaccinate, you still have an educational option."  I don't know that it will hold up if challenged.  The court will have to be pretty certain that the benefits to public health are worth overriding religious freedoms (and by extension personal non-religious beliefs).  No matter how much I agree that everyone should vaccinate their kids (barring medical reasons not to), I don't know that the court will go that far.

 

I have no legal background or training, so I'm sure someone more qualified than I can provide a better answer!

[ktgrok]

I am against forcing anyone to have ANY medication/vaccine/treatment without informed consent and the right to informed refusal. I would be VERY against a bill that said all people everywhere had to be vaccinated. However, I do beleive that an institution can set the guidelines of who can be there, and to say only vaccinated children can be there makes sense. I think this bill walks the line gracefully, allowing medical exemptions, and only applying to children that are physically in contact with children at the school. 

 

And yes, my kids are vaccinated. Slowly, but on track by age 5. 

[SeaConquest]

I'm not a First Amendment expert, but I don't think it's a cut-and-dry answer. There's some discussion here that might be useful:

 

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/vaccination-religious-exemptions

 

Sorry, I'm mobile, and not feeling well at the moment.

[SeaConquest]

Another: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120950/courts-have-upheld-governments-constitutional-right-vaccine-laws