yet more on vaccinations

[quietann]

So I was reading my mother-in-law's new book The New Killer Diseases last night, which includes a section on vaccinations. The book maintains that MA law does not allow a waiver for vaccination of schoolchildren. Looking further, I found the relevant state law:

http://www.state.ma.us/dph/regs/reg105CMR220.htm

The portion regarding waivers is:

(C) The requirements in 105 CMR 220.500(A) and (B) shall not apply:
(1) upon presentation of written documentation that the student meets the standards for medical or religious exemption set forth in M.G.L. c. 76, � 15;
(2) upon presentation of appropriate documentation, including a copy of a school immunization record, indicating receipt of the required immunizations;
(3) in the case of measles, mumps, rubella and hepatitis B, upon presentation of laboratory evidence of immunity; or
(4) in the case of varicella, upon presentation of laboratory evidence of immunity or a statement signed by a physician that the student has a history of chickenpox disease.

The religious exemption applies only when there is not an epidemic of the relevant diseases...

And the MA Department of Public Health has a website which presents the public health benefits of vaccination:

http://www.state.ma.us/dph/cdc/epii/imm/vac_safety/infdes.htm

The table at the top of the page is very instructive. Here is another relevant section (important to me since my immune system is somewhat impaired):

"# Children who are unimmunized are not only at risk themselves, but pose a danger of transmission of disease to other children who cannot be immunized because they are too young or because they have medical conditions that weaken their immune systems to the point where they cannot be adequately protected by vaccines.
# Due to medical advances, the number of children and adults surviving treatment for leukemia, with organ and bone marrow transplants, and those with other conditions that weaken the immune system, is growing. In order to be protected, these most vulnerable individuals, must rely on the community to protect them from disease exposure by community-wide vaccination."

This sets it right out: people who don't immunize their kids are essentially saying that their individual child's health is more important than the overall health of the community.

Comments

[hawkegirl.livejournal.com]

That's exactly right on the waivers. Medical or religeous - religeous being anything you want to it to be. Though there is legislation underway for a philosophical exemption too, or some other such wording.

The # issues, are *one* persepctive. The only cases of polio in the US in the last 20ish years (I don't recall the number off hand exactly) have been *FROM* the vaccine. First, the #s you list are lumping all vaccines together! That's crazy propaganda... even if you look at chickenpox where your average main stream parent questions the benifits of! The chickenpox vaccine has a 10 year lifespan according to it's documentation, so great, you get your 10 year old vaccinated again too, well what happens at 20 or 30 or whatever when most adults don't think about things like vaccines. You're going to have a ton of people who are suspetable to shingles and sever cases of chicken pox. Anyhow, yes we've all talked before about the chicken pox being questionable... so "Children who are unimmunized are not only at risk themselves...." is a melodramatic untrue statement. It is *far* more complicated then that.

Obviously it's your journal, and obviously people will believe what they want to believe, but I'm sort of supprised to see such matter of fact, one sided, obviously not well thought out info quoted so I had to rant a little. :>

[quietann.livejournal.com]

I've reserved an overall assessment for a new post, but...

WRT polio, yes, in the US, the cases of polio now come all (or almost all) from the live-attenuated oral polio vaccine. BUT the reason for this is that the polio virus has been elminated from the general population in the US *by widespread vaccination over many, many years*. Talk to anyone who is old enough to remember the polio epidemics of the mid 20th century to find out why this is a good thing. Or talk to anyone who caught polio in one of the epidemics and recovered, who now has post-polio syndrome.

There is a risk now of polio being reintroduced to the US by immigrant children from countries where polio is still endemic. There is some evidence that this has alreay happened a few times. The WHO was *this* close to eliminating polio world-wide a few years ago, but funding cuts (largely because the US delayed its payments to the UN for political purposes) meant that vaccination programs were interrupted long enough that polio regained a toehold in some countries, and is now endemic. A huge failure of public health, no?

(see http://www.endofpolio.org/ for more information....)

[hawkegirl.livejournal.com]

But the polio vaccine is far from %100 effective, or what you are saying would be completely correct.

[quietann.livejournal.com]

Worldwide, what besides vaccination would cause the number of polio cases to drop from over 350,000 in 1988 to less than 500 in 2001?

It actually doesn't need to be 100% effective. It needs to be effective enough in a large population that the virus dies out. There is something called the "reproductive number" (R0) in infectious disease research. I am oversimplifying, but if R0 is over 1.0, an epidemic will be sustained. If it's less than 1.0, the disease organism can remain in the population, but at very low levels. Occasional cases may occur, but there won't be epidemics. Get it down to zero, or close, and the disease organism dies out completely (if it's a disease like polio that is only harbored in humans).

Part of the concern is that when people don't vaccinate their kids, R0 increases. For most infectious diseases, it dropped well below 1.0 once widespread vaccination was initiated. In Great Britain, R0 for measles (which can be fatal) has doubled from .47 to .82 in 5 years, and is growing by 20% each year. It's going to be over 1.0 *soon*. Measles cases there are already on the rise. (link is here.

[cos]

If you look at what was going on with the number of polio cases BEFORE the vaccine came out, you will see a dramatic decline. It's one of the classic things the "pro-vaccine" people point to (the decline in polio since the vaccine), one of the things the "anti-vaccine" people point to is you look -before- the vaccine you see that decline was already well underway.

I've seen alot of speculation as to why that is, and the one I'm most willing to buy is diapering changing - people starting to throw them away, instead of trying to wash and reuse them (as I gather fecal matter has a very high concentration polio) that combined with a better hygene practice.

[hawkegirl.livejournal.com]

Sorry that was me (cos was still logged in in my lj) and now that I've changed users I can't delete it - so feel free to delete it (and this) please.

[hawkegirl.livejournal.com]

If you look at what was going on with the number of polio cases BEFORE the vaccine came out, you will see a dramatic decline. It's one of the classic things the "pro-vaccine" people point to (the decline in polio since the vaccine), one of the things the "anti-vaccine" people point to is you look -before- the vaccine you see that decline was already well underway.

I've seen alot of speculation as to why that is, and the one I'm most willing to buy is diapering changing - people starting to throw them away, instead of trying to wash and reuse them (as I gather fecal matter has a very high concentration polio) that combined with a better hygene practice.

[quietann.livejournal.com]

the numbers I quoted (drop from 350K to 500 cases from 1988 to 2001) were for *third world countries* where disposable diapers are unheard of, and (my bet is) that people are too poor to *not* reuse cloths or whatever they use for diapers.

FWIW

[hawkegirl.livejournal.com]

I do respect vaccination. I just think it's not nearly as black and white as the goverment would like us to believe, so I have a hard time swollowing that as alot of the research I've done says it's not nearly as straight forward as that.

I *really* don't mean to be flaming in someone's journal - especially about something they're posting. It's your journal after all! I hope I havn't offended.

[surrealestate.livejournal.com]

This sets it right out: people who don't immunize their kids are essentially saying that their individual child's health is more important than the overall health of the community.

Are you saying this as your point of view or just summarizing it as the government's point of view?

[quietann.livejournal.com]

Both, actually.

BTW I do think there are cases where vaccination should be waived. Mostly medical ones, though I might make exceptions for Christian Scientists also.

Misleading People for their Own Good

[sandhawke.livejournal.com]

What gets me is the lying: on the one hand all the government information about vaccination suggests it confers immunity. (Heck, they even call them "immunizations" much of the time.) On the other hand, if your dog gets bitten by a rabid animal, you are required by law to quarantine it, because although the rabes vaccine is the most effective one they have, it's still not nearly 100%.

None of this affects your main point -- even if the vaccine is 1% effective, there may be an en masse benefit to everyone taking it -- but it does deeply offend me. I'm sure they justify the lie in the name of the greater good, and sleep with a clear consciences, but that doesn't make it okay.

Re: Misleading People for their Own Good

[quietann.livejournal.com]

I'll basically agree with you here... based on some info about transmission of HIV, of all things. The risk for passing on HIV from a single unprotected sex act between someone who is HIV positive and an otherwise healthy person is something like 1 in 500. But the government doesn't want you to know that. I don't necessarily think this is a *good* thing, but OTOH having people believe HIV is incredibly transmissable has gotten them to change their behavior.