using religion to avoid vaccination...

[headscratcher4]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071017/ap_on_re_us/vaccine_skeptics;_ylt=Ag2z8xJmyHT4FSlEL9mZANis0NUE

An interesting story today about people claiming "religious" exemptions for their children to avoid vaccinations -- when they are not particularilly relgious.

I don't know why this makes me so mad and so sad, and I certainly don't wish a disease on these children because of their parents stuborn obtuseness...but I can't help but think of my late Aunt who suffered from polio as a little girl in the 1930's ...spent time in an Iron Lung and who lived with one leg being signficantly shorter than the other.

It is something I never had to face...because there was a vaccine available.

I fear that the crazies are winning.

 

[geni]

Yes it happens. Should be noted that most states also accept philosophical objections. to see it action:

http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=771478
http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=771016
http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=768547
http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=767599

 

[headscratcher4]

I am even willing to forgive those with a religious of philosophical objection...in the end you can't really force people. It is just sad, I guess is my point. They can't prove their fear by science and they cover thier fear by citing religion.

 

[rocketdodger]

I am even willing to forgive those with a religious of philosophical objection...in the end you can't really force people. It is just sad, I guess is my point. They can't prove their fear by science and they cover thier fear by citing religion.

There are some risks with vaccination, though. The problem is that people aren't educated as to just what those risks mean. Compared to all the ways to die there are in an average kid's day, it becomes insignificant. Unfortunately a good number of parents aren't very smart and don't see that -- any risk at all becomes significant in their mind.

 

[kellyb]

Yes it happens. Should be noted that most states also accept philosophical objections.

Actually, only 18 states accept philosophical objections (Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin) , so in the rest of the states, if parents want to skip even one vaccine, they have to file as religious objectors.

 

[rocketdodger]

There are some risks with vaccination, though. The problem is that people aren't educated as to just what those risks mean. Compared to all the ways to die there are in an average kid's day, it becomes insignificant. Unfortunately a good number of parents aren't very smart and don't see that -- any risk at all becomes significant in their mind.

I just realized you might be talking about the parents that don't want their kids vaccinated because "it would anger the juju" rather than because they are paranoid about the risks.

In that case, it is an outrage. We do not let parents hurt their children (well, in my country we don't at least) and this is tanatamount to the same thing. There should be laws against it if you ask me.

 

[Sinope]

I don't think vaccines should be mandated at all. I am glad I do not live in the US. If I did, I would probably be forced to claim a "religious exemption" too, even though I am an atheist, just because I would not give any children of mine all the vaccines required to attend school.

The list or "required" vaccines in the US is a lot longer than what is given to children in the UK and some of them are ridiculous (imo).

So, yeah, I sorta agree, it makes me mad that parents have to claim a religious exemption in some states.(even if they just want to skip one vaccine) All states should have a philosophical exemption.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I think parents should be able to opt out of vaccinations for their children.

I also think that should they do so, their children should be barred from any gathering of other children; schools, churches, sports teams, movie theaters, airplanes, etc.

If you're an anti-science loony who is willing to sacrifice your child's health to your own delusions, we probably aren't going to stop all the ways you'll find to do it. However, the rest of society should not have to be at risk from your delusions.

 

[headscratcher4]

I think parents should be able to opt out of vaccinations for their children.

I also think that should they do so, their children should be barred from any gathering of other children; schools, churches, sports teams, movie theaters, airplanes, etc.

If you're an anti-science loony who is willing to sacrifice your child's health to your own delusions, we probably aren't going to stop all the ways you'll find to do it. However, the rest of society should not have to be at risk from your delusions.

That really sort of encompasses what I think. I also think that the children should be able to retroactively sue their parents if they catch something...or the state should be able to if the kid dies of some avoidable disease, as anyone who gets a disases from their kids should be able to sue as well.

 

[Irony]

While I fully support the right of an adult to put themselves at risk through idiocy, I don't support the right for them to put their children at risk. Mandatory vaccine exemptions should not be allowed for any non-medical reason.

 

[kellyb]

I think parents should be able to opt out of vaccinations for their children.

I also think that should they do so, their children should be barred from any gathering of other children; schools, churches, sports teams, movie theaters, airplanes, etc.

Do you think people (of any age) who haven't gotten a flu shot this year should be barred from public gatherings?

In NJ, a parent has to file a religious exemption if their daycare child hasn't been vaccinated for the flu:

http://nj.gov/cgi-bin/dhss/njnewsline/view_article.pl?id=3013

NJAC 8:57-4.19 Children attending childcare or preschool between 6 and 59 months of age to receive one annual dose of influenza vaccine

And the evidence for the influenza vaccine in that age group is not what you'd expect:

http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en...=avflulit1&name=websis&op=modload&show=24703+

In children under two, the efficacy of inactivated vaccine was similar to placebo.

That no safety comparisons could be carried out emphasizes the need for standardisation of methods and presentation of vaccine safety data in future studies. It was surprising to find only one study of inactivated vaccine in children under two years, given recent recommendations to vaccinate healthy children from six months old in the USA and Canada. If immunisation in children is to be recommended as public-health policy, large-scale studies assessing important outcomes and directly comparing vaccine types are urgently required.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7574/912

Every vaccination campaign has stated aims against which its effects must be measured. The US Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices produces a regularly updated rationale for vaccination against influenza.1 The current version identifies 11 categories of patients at high risk of complications from influenza (box).

People for whom vaccination is recommended in the United States1

Children aged 6-59 months

In children under 2 years inactivated vaccines had the same field efficacy as placebo,8 and in healthy people under 65 vaccination did not affect hospital stay, time off work, or death from influenza and its complications

Gap between policy and evidence
The large gap between policy and what the data tell us (when rigorously assembled and evaluated) is surprising. The reasons for this situation are not clear and may be complex.

Summary points
Public policy worldwide recommends the use of inactivated influenza vaccines to prevent seasonal outbreaks

Because viral circulation and antigenic match vary each year and non-randomised studies predominate, systematic reviews of large datasets from several decades provide the best information on vaccine performance

Evidence from systematic reviews shows that inactivated vaccines have little or no effect on the effects measured

Most studies are of poor methodological quality and the impact of confounders is high

Little comparative evidence exists on the safety of these vaccines

Reasons for the current gap between policy and evidence are unclear, but given the huge resources involved, a re-evaluation should be urgently undertaken

The optimistic and confident tone of some predictions of viral circulation and of the impact of inactivated vaccines, which are at odds with the evidence, is striking. The reasons are probably complex and may involve "a messy blend of truth conflicts and conflicts of interest making it difficult to separate factual disputes from value disputes"22 or a manifestation of optimism bias (an unwarranted belief in the efficacy of interventions).23

Whatever the reasons, it is a sobering thought that Archie Cochrane's 1972 statement that we should use what has been tested and found to reach its objectives is as revolutionary now as it was then.

On a more technical note, Maurice Hilleman explained why Merck never made flu vaccines:

http://www.daimi.au.dk/~roald/evolu...04/EV04_litt/uge_4/Hilleman_InfVaccine_02.pdf

8.1.2.1. Split vaccines. Before means were developed to
achieve high level purity of the killed influenza virus vaccine,
some manufacturers developed ether- or detergent-split viral
products which clearly were of reduced toxigenicity for man
[112]. Such vaccine is now used widely throughout the world
and is especially recommended for use in children less than
12 years of age.
Subunit vaccine given in a single dose is adequate for
use in immunizing persons who are primed or who have
immunologic memory for antigens or epitopes of viruses
against which they are expected to protect. To the contrary,
split vaccines are very poorly immunogenic in persons
who have not been primed through previous vaccination
or infection with homologous or antigenically related virus
[83,112–115] and may require that two doses be given.
A cogent example of reduced immunogenicity resulting
from the split process was provided by our own clinical
studies in 1976 of whole and either split vaccines against
the Fort Dix H1N1 swine virus (Table 3) [113]. There was
an overall progressively lesser antibody response to split
vaccine with decreasing age in the range of 18 years to
6.5 months. This was most evident in children 10 years of
age or less, and especially at 6.5 months to 3 years of age.
These findings were corroborated by Parkman et al. [114]
in clinical studies.
The deficiencies in immune response to split vaccine in
immunologically inexperienced persons has largely gone
unheeded because young children are not given influenza
vaccine routinely. They do predict a likely lack of immune
response following split vaccine when protection against
a new shift pandemic virus is urgently needed. Because
of these portents for future failures in pandemic threats,
our laboratories continued to manufacture whole virus vaccine.
The health community, perhaps unaware of the facts
and following recommendations for use of split vaccine in
children less than 12 years of age, chose to use the split
vaccine which were of somewhat less reactogenicity [114].
Our laboratories, not wishing to participate in marketing a
likely inadequate vaccine in time of pandemic, withdrew
from vaccine manufacture.

But if a parent wants to get out of just the flu vaccine in NJ (for example) for their 6 month old, they have to file as religious objectors.

 

[robinson]

But public health officials say it takes only a few people to cause an outbreak that can put large numbers of lives at risk.

"When you choose not to get a vaccine, you're not just making a choice for yourself, you're making a choice for the person sitting next to you," said Dr. Lance Rodewald, director of the CDC's Immunization Services Division.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071017/ap_on_re_us/vaccine_skeptics;_ylt=Ag2z8xJmyHT4FSlEL9mZANis0NUE

Hmm... lets see. Vaccines prevent vaccinated people from getting a disease. So if you don't get the vaccine, you might get the disease. But all the people who have had the vaccine, won't be at risk, because they are immune to the disease.

So how is not getting a vaccine putting all the immune people at risk? The only people at risk are the one who didn't get vaccinated.

"it takes only a few people to cause an outbreak"

OK, where are those people getting the disease from?

"you're making a choice for the person sitting next to you" WTF? If the person next to you is vaccinated, how are you putting THEM at risk? That doesn't make any sense.

Either a vaccine protects you from the disease, or it doesn't. People with a disease can't hurt you, you are immune. Right? The only people at risk are those who didn't get vaccinated. Right?

The argument doesn't make any sense. You also have to wonder, if almost everybody is vaccinated, where are the diseases coming from?

 

[kellyb]

So if you don't get the vaccine, you might get the disease. But all the people who have had the vaccine, won't be at risk, because they are immune to the disease.

So how is not getting a vaccine putting all the immune people at risk? The only people at risk are the one who didn't get vaccinated.

Well, a lot of the vaccines are, like, 80% effective. (chickenpox comes to mind).
Mumps is only 70% effective.

So if you're part of the 20-30% who it didn't work for, you can catch it. If you shed a pathogen all over 10 other people while you're infectious, one or two of them will catch it, etc. So it can spread (sort of slowly, usually) like that sometimes.

You also have to wonder, if almost everybody is vaccinated, where are the diseases coming from?

Each disease is different. With chickenpox, the immunity from the vaccine just wanes, so the US has had a small explosion of varicella in the past couple of years, in a slightly older age group than it used to be.

With measles, it's usually imported from overseas, but since the vaccine is pretty effective, the outbreaks die out really fast since the virus doesn't have far to go.
Every disease is different, though.

 

[Capsid]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071017/ap_on_re_us/vaccine_skeptics;_ylt=Ag2z8xJmyHT4FSlEL9mZANis0NUE

Hmm... lets see. Vaccines prevent vaccinated people from getting a disease. So if you don't get the vaccine, you might get the disease. But all the people who have had the vaccine, won't be at risk, because they are immune to the disease.

So how is not getting a vaccine putting all the immune people at risk? The only people at risk are the one who didn't get vaccinated.

"it takes only a few people to cause an outbreak"

OK, where are those people getting the disease from?

"you're making a choice for the person sitting next to you" WTF? If the person next to you is vaccinated, how are you putting THEM at risk? That doesn't make any sense.

Either a vaccine protects you from the disease, or it doesn't. People with a disease can't hurt you, you are immune. Right? The only people at risk are those who didn't get vaccinated. Right?

The argument doesn't make any sense. You also have to wonder, if almost everybody is vaccinated, where are the diseases coming from?

You're forgetting those people who can not have vaccines because of a medical condition such as those on immunosuppressive drugs or immunocompromised people and (as kellyb said) those who are vaccine non-responders. So the pathogen can persist in this small pool of people. Vaccination is a social concept to protect those who can't get vaccinated such as immunising boys against Rubella to protect the foetus. It's all about minimising the spread of the pathogen.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

Yes it happens. Should be noted that most states also accept philosophical objections. to see it action:

http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=771478
http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=771016
http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=768547
http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=767599

It's all I can do not to sign up for that forum and try to talk some sense into those idiot mothers before we have another outbreak of whooping cough.

For the love of FSM, this is so ridiculous it should be considered child abuse. It puts their child in danger and creates the potential for yet more (unnecessary) strain on the health care system that it really does not need.

It's absolutely sickening. Just sickening and revolting.

Do these people actually do any real research into the matter? Like actually look at the literature? Not even the scholarly stuff. There's good info out there from the CDC about this. The CDC, AMA and FDA and department of health and human services have all expressed great concern about this.

Even the WHO, which usually concerns itself with the parts of the world that can't take very good care of themselves with their own resources has said that the trends against vaccination in developed western countries are "of increasing concern." and called the anti-vaccine movement "alarming"

Christ what is wrong with these new-agers. Do they realize how great it is that we don't have polio anymore?

You get a group of unvaccinated kids in one place and you can very easily get an outbreak of German measles or mumps whooping cough or even possibly polio. You have your kid scrape their knee playing and they could get tetanus. And yes... they CAN DIE FROM THAT STUFF. And people DO DIE because they are not vaccinated.

Generally the vaccine programs in the US, where even kids who lack healthcare are usually afforded vaccines has really helped make this stuff a thing of the past. Now it's coming back.

It makes me want to slap these stupid "open minded" "natural" moms.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

You're forgetting those people who can not have vaccines because of a medical condition such as those on immunosuppressive drugs or immunocompromised people and (as kellyb said) those who are vaccine non-responders. So the pathogen can persist in this small pool of people. Vaccination is a social concept to protect those who can't get vaccinated such as immunising boys against Rubella to protect the foetus. It's all about minimising the spread of the pathogen.

Yes. It's important that as many members of the public are vaccinated as possible especially against such diseases. It protects everyone, because a tiny number of people may not respond properly to a vaccine or for other reasons.

It's also just common sense.

The problem is it's a two-way street. People don't vaccinate their kid and low and behold the kid is healthy. They see this as some kind of vindication. "Look at how good my kid is doing unvaccinated."

Of course one of them could get very very ill or die because they're not vaccinated. It's like saying "I never wear my seatbelt and I haven't purchased insurance in 10 years. I don't even use my blinker and I've never been in an accident. Look at all those idiots paying for insurance. I'm smart because I don't pay for insurance and I've never needed it. Now excuse me while I drive home before I keel over from this last round of beers."

 

[Deetee]

If everyone else in the world immunised their kids against all preventable diseases, then I won't have to vaccinate mine......

This is the logical extension of the concept Robinson mentions. The idea is that if there is a sufficiently high number of immune children in a population (usually >90% or so) then there will not be any epidemics of the infection, just occasional sporadic cases/small outbreaks in the few remaining susceptibles. By getting a high enough proportion of immune individuals, a form of "herd immunity" is engendered, an infection episodes are very infrequent.

This protects the vulnerable few in the population, because they are unlikely to encounter the infection. So those who cannot be immunised (for medical reasons) or who have failed to respond to the vaccine, or who are too young to receive the vaccine will also have a measure of protection. These individuals rely on the public-spirited nature of the rest of the population (who have been vaccinated) to guarantee their own protection.

An example of the failure of herd immunity was seen a few years ago in London, when some children became seriously ill from measles (I think one developed serious permanent brain damage, and another went blind). These were children who had renal transplants, and in whom measles vaccine was contraindicated - they relied on herd immunity for their protection, and as we know, post MMR scare/Wakefield, this has been inadequate in many parts of the UK. They had caught measles from a someone who visited the hospital and who actually had measles (because his parents had refused to let him be vaccinated).

 

[Cuddles]

in the end you can't really force people.

I disagree. We force people to do a lot of things they would rather not do. I would rather not pay taxes, and I expect most people are the same, but I am forced to, and I don't mind being forced because it is for the benefit of everyone, including myself. Vaccination is the same.

For example, in Britain, measles is at its worst for at least two decades. The first death from measles for 14 years occured in 2006. There were more measles cases in the first 5 months of 2006 than in the whole of 2003. Although I haven't seen the final figures for the year (not even sure if they've been released yet), that means it is almost certain that 2006 was the worst year since the current method of monitoring began in 1995. People aren't just putting themselves at risk by refusing vaccination, they are putting their children and everyone else at risk. They should be forced to be vaccinated in the same way we force people to learn to drive before letting them loose on the streets.

Fortunately it is not all bad news. Measles vaccination in 2 year olds was below 80% in 2003 and is now in the mid-80s. However, the level required for effective herd immunity is estimated at around 95%.

http://www.hpa.org.uk/hpa/news/articles/press_releases/2006/060615_measles.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4871728.stm

 

[robinson]

Well, a lot of the vaccines are, like, 80% effective. (chickenpox comes to mind).
Mumps is only 70% effective.

So if you're part of the 20-30% who it didn't work for, you can catch it. If you shed a pathogen all over 10 other people while you're infectious, one or two of them will catch it, etc. So it can spread (sort of slowly, usually) like that sometimes.

What does that mean? Effective? How do we know if somebody has resistance to a disease after they are vaccinated?

Each disease is different. With chickenpox, the immunity from the vaccine just wanes, so the US has had a small explosion of varicella in the past couple of years, in a slightly older age group than it used to be.

What does that mean? -> the immunity from the vaccine just wanes

With measles, it's usually imported from overseas, but since the vaccine is pretty effective, the outbreaks die out really fast since the virus doesn't have far to go.
Every disease is different, though.

Are there countries that don't vaccinate against measles?

You're forgetting those people who can not have vaccines because of a medical condition such as those on immunosuppressive drugs or immunocompromised people and (as kellyb said) those who are vaccine non-responders. So the pathogen can persist in this small pool of people. Vaccination is a social concept to protect those who can't get vaccinated such as immunizing boys against Rubella to protect the foetus. It's all about minimizing the spread of the pathogen.

Do those that the vaccine doesn't work, do they get the disease? And is this creating vaccine resistant strains?

They should be forced to be vaccinated in the same way we force people to learn to drive before letting them loose on the streets.

Oh please no! We have seen how badly that works.

 

[kellyb]

What does that mean? Effective? How do we know if somebody has resistance to a disease after they are vaccinated?

You can test people's blood, for one thing. That's kind of confusing, though, because different tests are sensitive to different degrees, and working out a correlate of immunity (the exact response or degree of response that's supposed to provide protection in the real world) is always a work in progress.

What does that mean? -> the immunity from the vaccine just wanes

If means you get the shot, you're immune for a few years, then the immunity goes away.
Then you're open to being infected again.

Are there countries that don't vaccinate against measles?

There are countries with pretty low vaccine uptake, so they still have endemic measles in some areas.