Vaccine Exemptions Under Attack in 2019

Posted: 9/25/2019 7:57:34 PM | with 3 comments

NVIC’s 2019 Annual Report on U.S. State Vaccine Legislation

By NVIC Advocacy Team

Citizen involvement in the legislative process to protect the human right to exercise informed consent to vaccination increased to unprecedented levels in 2019 to meet the most aggressive and unwarranted attack on vaccine exemptions in U.S. history. In a 2019 Annual Report on U.S. State Vaccine Legislation, the non-profit educational charity National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) reports that during the 2019 legislative session, 22 bills across 17 states were filed to attempt to eliminate vaccine exemptions.  Three bills passed, 12 died, and seven bills are still pending in California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at the time of writing.  Status on all bills in this report reflect their positions on September 9, 2019.

Working to prevent vaccine injuries and deaths through public education since 1982, NVIC is the largest and oldest U.S. charity disseminating information about diseases, vaccines and informed consent to vaccination. NVIC provides well-referenced, accurate information to the public about vaccine science, policy and law but does not make vaccine use recommendations. In 2010, NVIC launched the NVIC Advocacy Portal (NVICAP), a free online vaccine choice advocacy network, for the purpose of securing and defending informed consent protections in vaccine policies and laws.

nvicap banner

NVIC works alongside and shares legislative information with many health freedom groups that support NVIC’s more than three-decade call for the protection of vaccine informed consent rights in America. The NVIC Advocacy Portal team, including key NVIC Advocacy directors in many states, works with families and enlightened health care professionals to educate legislators and protect vaccine informed consent rights.

During the 2019 legislative session, NVIC analyzed, tracked and issued positions on an unrivaled 221 vaccine related bills and 5 sets of rules in the following 40 states and the District of Columbia through the NVICAP: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, West Virginia and Wyoming.

42 vaccine-related bills are still pending in California, District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and action to support the good bills and fight against the bad bills is still needed. Bills referenced in this report are published on the NVICAP and registered users can obtain a more detailed bill analysis, including current status, NVIC’s position on the bill, and recommended action.

Highlights from 2019

There were significant positive take away points from the outcome of the 2019 legislative session:

  • Out of 40 bills filed across 22 states (AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, IA, IL, MA, ME, MN, MO, MT, NJ, NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, TX, VT, WA, WI) to either eliminate or restrict some vaccine exemptions, 5 passed: California SB 276 and SB 714, Maine LD 798, NY A2371A, and WA EHB 1638, 12 are pending and 23 died;
  • Out of the 137 vaccine-related bills that NVIC opposed, only 18 bad bills passed; and
  • The 2019 legislative session featured more proposed vaccine-related bills worthy of support (77) than any legislative session since the launching of NVIC’s Advocacy Portal in 2010.

There were six states with 10 or more vaccine related bills filed this session. Texas has the record with 29 bills; New York can be credited with 19; New Jersey currently has 13; Arizona finished with 11, and Connecticut and Iowa both ended sessions with 10 bills each.  

The remaining vaccine-related bills that either passed or were defeated in states during the 2019 legislative session are broken out and described below by category.

2019 Bill Analysis by Category

The four main areas that NVIC focuses on when tracking proposed bills are: (1) vaccine exemptions and informed consent rights; (2) vaccine mandates; (3) vaccine tracking and reporting and (4) vaccines in general.  Some bills may be included in multiple categories. For example, a proposed bill attempting to mandate a vaccine may also have a requirement for vaccine tracking so it would be counted in both categories but only counted once in the total bill count.

The NVIC Advocacy team provides referenced, accurate vaccine information and talking points for NVICAP users to background legislators. Some of the position statements NVIC posted on the Advocacy Portal in 2019 were listed as bills to “watch” because our analysis indicated they contained sections that could be vulnerable to amendments that would conflict with NVIC’s mission.

The breakout and analysis of bills in these different categories identifies trends across the states and serves as a guide if you want to become active by joining the NVIC Advocacy Portal (NVICAP) and educating your state legislators and community in 2020 about why it is so important to protect vaccine informed consent rights.

Vaccine Exemptions and Informed Consent (122 bills)

The surprising story about this session is that out of the 122 vaccine-related bills filed in state legislatures in 2019, which had components that affected vaccine exemptions and informed consent rights, NVIC opposed 63 of the proposed bills, but supported 58 and “watched” one. Media tended to hype the bills attacking exemptions so much that it may come as a surprise that there were almost as many bills to expand informed consent rights as there were to eliminate or restrict those rights.  This can be directly credited to positive action taken by forward thinking state legislators, who were given fact-based information about vaccines, exemptions, and diseases by concerned citizens who took the time to make one-on-one personal contact with their elected representatives.

Eliminating or Restricting Vaccine Exemptions

The most significant concerning trend coming out of the 2019 legislative cycle is that 40 bills were filed to either remove or restrict vaccine exemptions in the following 22 states: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

There were 22 bills filed in the following 17 states attempting to eliminate vaccine exemptions: Alabama, Arizona, California, Iowa, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Out of these 22 bills, 3 passed, 7 are still pending and need strong opposition, and the other 12 failed to pass.

Maine LD 798 eliminated both the religious and philosophical exemptions and goes into effect September 1, 2021. This bill narrowly passed the house and senate and families in Maine need to work with legislators to repeal the removal of these exemptions.    

New York A 2371A eliminated the religious exemption in one day with no public hearings and the law goes into effect immediately leaving only a restrictive medical exemption. There are ongoing legal efforts by  Children’s Health Defense to challenge the new law and the implementation schedule.  New York's repeal of the religious exemption violates the rights of the disabled under The Rehabilitation Act Of 1973.  The religious exemption in New York needs to be reinstated by the legislature in 2020.

Washington EHB 1638 eliminated personal and philosophical exemptions to MMR vaccines only, leaving philosophical exemptions for all other vaccines and religious and medical exemptions for all vaccines including MMR as of July 28, 2019.  It could have been much worse, as WA SB 5841 attempted to remove all religious and philosophical exemptions for all vaccines, but this bill was unnecessary.   

Seven remaining bills still active, which are attempting to remove exemptions that deserve strong vigilant opposition, are California AB 283 seeking to eliminate the personal belief exemption for young children using the CalWORKs assistance program; New Jersey A 3818, which is trying to eliminate the religious exemption; Massachusetts H.3999 and HD 4284, which are are trying to remove the religious exemption; Pennsylvania SB 653, which is aiming for the removal of religious and philosophical exemptions, and Wisconsin AB 248 and SB 262 that would strike personal conviction vaccine exemptions.

Although not included in this report’s 2019 tally of bills, it is worth highlighting a highly aggressive early attack on the vaccine exemptions in Florida. SB 64 was filed in advance of the 2020 legislative session by Florida State Senator Lauren Book, a Broward County Democrat, to eliminate the religious exemption and restrict the medical exemption.  Florida families can refer to the alert and information on the NVIC Advocacy Portal on how to communicate with legislators about opposing this bill and asking the bill sponsor to withdraw the bill.   

There have been 18 bills and two sets of rules proposed to restrict vaccine exemptions across these 12 states: California, Colorado (both a bill and a rule), Connecticut, Hawaii (rule), Illinois, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. So far, only two of the bills have passed, California SB 276 and SB 714, which together significantly restrict the medical exemption. Four bills in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania remain active and need strong opposition.   

In Hawaii, a new rule was unfortunately adopted and signed by the governor to restrict the medical exemption by confining it to the restrictive language “due to a stated cause” and “in conformance with recognized standard medical practices.”  "Recognized standard medical practices" means in accordance with the United States Department of Health and Human Services', Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), General Best Practice Guidelines for Immunization, and future amendments that are adopted by the department.”  This restriction goes into effect on July 1, 2020.  Citizens in Hawaii should work hard to reverse this through the legislature in 2020 in advance of this rule going into effect.

The debate surrounding a draft of a proposed rule in Colorado to mandate that parents use state forms to file vaccine exemptions is ongoing. The information on voicing opposition, once and if the rule is formally proposed, will be posted on the Colorado page on the NVICAP

Bills pending to restrict vaccine exemptions that deserve continued strong opposition include Massachusetts HD 4470 and SD 2548 to restrict medical and religious exemptions by requiring state scrutiny and approval, New Jersey S 2173 to significantly restrict the religious belief exemption; Pennsylvania HB 1771 to require annual medical consultations to use a religious and philosophical exemption, and Pennsylvania SB 626 to require certification of religious exemptions by vaccine administrators.  These bills need to continue to be opposed. 

Vaccine choice advocates came out by the thousands in record numbers in many states and successfully held back multiple other attacks to remove or restrict vaccine exemptions in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Vermont, and Washington.

It is critical that vaccine choice advocates in every state register for and check in to the NVIC Advocacy Portal.  The most important thing you can do if you care about this issue is to establish relationships with and educate your legislators now and into next year so you can be ready to counter bills that will restrict or eliminate exemptions and get good bills filed to protect and expand vaccine exemptions.   There are a lot of possible activities that you could participate in and it is easy to get distracted with rallies and social media, but there is nothing more important that you can do to protect or expand your right to delay or decline vaccines without penalty or harassment than talking to your legislators in person and establishing a positive, respectful relationship with them.

Exemption Disclosure and School Shaming

One way that vaccine industry lobbyists place disruptive pressure on schools allowing students to enroll with vaccine exemptions is to lobby to pass legislation that requires individual schools to publish vaccination and vaccine exemption rates and publicly post that information online.  These bills are promoted under the guise of educating parents, but they are really about government-sponsored shaming that pits school against school and parent against parent for the purpose of marginalizing and increasing peer pressure on families whose children have vaccine exemptions.

Media will use these reports in a biased manner to reflect negatively on schools with more exemptions in an attempt to solicit support for further restricting or eliminating vaccine exemptions. Some of these media companies like the Texas Tribune, are funded heavily by organizations that support mass vaccination like the $1.7 million dollars the Tribune received by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Other publications utilize paid content otherwise known as “native advertising” to take in money from businesses who are willing to pay for “articles” discrediting families delaying or declining vaccines.

Fortunately, out of the 13 bills filed in this category in 7 states, none have passed and the following 9 bills died: Arizona HB 1786, HB 2353, and SB 1201, Oklahoma SB 925, and Texas HB 1966, HB 3551, HB 3883, SB 329 and SB 873.  Bills in Massachusetts (HD 4470 and SD 2548) Michigan (HB 4610) and Pennsylvania (HB 1767) are still pending and deserve strong opposition. 

Children Vaccinating Themselves?

A very troubling area of proposed legislative changes are bills that allow minor children to be vaccinated without the knowledge or informed consent of their parents.  A child is less likely than an adult parent to understand their personal and family medical history, including a history of vaccine reactions, allergies and autoimmune or neurological disorders. Minor children do not have the same kind of critical thinking skills or emotional maturity required to make a vaccine benefit-risk decision compared to an adult. In addition, if a child receives a vaccination without a parent’s knowledge or informed consent and then experiences a vaccine reaction, a parent might not recognize the potential cause of their child’s sudden decline in health. This lack of knowledge by parents could be life threatening for the child.  Fortunately, none of these bills passed.

None of the 13 bills introduced in seven states that would allow minor children to consent to some or all vaccines without their parents’ knowledge or approval have passed to date. Connecticut SB 858 would have allowed for minors to consent to HPV vaccines, and New York A 973 and S 3899A were confined to allowing minors to consent to sexually transmitted disease vaccines, but Georgia HB 615, Missouri HB 1075, New York A 6465B and S4244, Vermont H 515 and pending District of Columbia B23-0171, pending in Massachusetts HD 4470 and SD 2548, and pending New Jersey A 5399 and S 3835 would let minors of various ages consent to being vaccinated without parental knowledge or consent.  See NVIC's Submitted Testimony Against D.C. B23-0171   

Expanding Vaccine Exemptions and Informed Consent

statue of liberty

Hard working vaccine and health freedom advocates and open-minded legislators came together to introduce 58 bills in the following 24 states to expand vaccine exemptions and protect informed consent rights: Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia,  

Oklahoma passed an important bill, HB 2339, that requires prior written consent before a child can receive a vaccine at school.  With more schools hosting clinics, there is an increasing risk for children to be vaccinated at school with vaccines the children didn’t need or that the parent didn’t want.

Legislators are increasingly recognizing problems created by forced vaccination policies where parents are not provided enough information about potential vaccine risks and contraindications, and in response, 23 bills were filed in 16 states tackling the issue of improving vaccine informed consent.  Arizona, Connecticut, Iowa, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Mississippi, Oregon, Texas, and Vermont all had bills filed to require additional information to be provided prior to vaccination.

Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Texas had bills that either prohibited some form of discrimination or insurance kickbacks over vaccination status. Pennsylvania HB 286, which is still pending, would prohibit insurance companies from denying a health care practitioner participation in an insurance plan or decreasing reimbursements based on vaccination rates or the practitioner's decision not to vaccinate.  Pennsylvania (HB 48) and Ohio (HB 132) have bills currently pending that would require schools to inform parents of their right to file vaccine exemptions. While none of the other bills passed, the increased attention by legislators indicates they are hearing the voices and concerns of their constituents.

There were 17 bills in 10 states that expanded vaccine exemptions.  Hawaii, Iowa, Mississippi, Rhode Island, and West Virginia all had bills to add conscientious or philosophical belief exemptions while Arizona, Mississippi, and West Virginia had bills filed that tried to add religious exemptions.   

Recognizing the unnecessary and preventable risks of overvaccination, legislators in Arizona, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Washington filed six bills to allow and expand the application of serologic proof of immunity.

Oklahoma, Oregon and Pennsylvania continue to break important ground taking a stand for parental rights. Oklahoma SB 861 was filed to clarify that refusing to vaccinate or delaying vaccination is not child abuse. In Oregon, both HB 2779 and SB 653 would have required parental consent before children taken into protective custody can be vaccinated.  While these bills did not pass, reigning in state child protective services officials, which attempt to criminalize voluntary vaccine decision making and override parental rights, is another area that state legislators can make a difference with proactive legislation.  Deserving strong support, Pennsylvania HB 286 is still pending and it prohibits child protective services from initiating an investigation on a parent or guardian for the sole reason of delaying or declining a vaccine. 

Threats and outright denial of healthcare by physicians based on a patient’s vaccination status is a growing problem in America and a number of state legislators are justifiably concerned about it and have become more open to considering bills to prohibit such abusive practices.  Two bills in Texas, HB 3857 and SB 2351, and Montana HB 711 would have protected patients from discrimination by health care providers over vaccination status, but did not pass. Pennsylvania families can still support pending HB 286 prohibiting discrimination by health care practitioners and health care facilitates against patients, or parents and guardians of patients, based solely on choosing to delay or decline a vaccination.  NVIC encourages families to educate their legislators about harassment and discriminatory practices by physicians, including denial of medical care, and to also share personal experiences related to threats and sanctions by physicians – or anyone else - for exercising vaccine informed consent rights by posting on NVIC’s Cry For Vaccine Freedom Wall.

Vaccine Mandates (47 bills)

Expanding Vaccine Mandates

In 2019, 17 of the 24 bills that proposed to add new vaccine mandates died.  New Jersey and Massachusetts have seven pending vaccine mandate bills for adult healthcare workers and childhood HPV and meningococcal vaccines, which still need to be opposed. 

So far in 2019, the only way that vaccine mandates have expanded has been through the rule making process initiated by state agencies.  Hawaii governor Ige signed a rule into effect to mandate ACIP recommended vaccines, which includes HPV, meningitis and flu vaccines, and Kansas enacted a rule to mandate Hepatitis A and meningococcal vaccines for school attendance. NVIC supported a resolution in Idaho, HCR 4, to reject a recently adopted rule which mandates a 2nd dose of a meningococcal vaccine for 12th grade students. This resolution failed in the legislature, but NVIC has a current alert on the NVIC Advocacy Portal for people in Idaho to participate in the rule review process to hopefully get this mandate removed. Please follow alerts on the NVICAP to articulate concerns to legislators about these attempted expansions of the vaccine schedule by unelected unaccountable government agency employees through rule making. Other rules to expand vaccine mandates are pending in Wisconsin and Wyoming.

In 6 states there were bills filed trying to mandate use of the HPV vaccine: Connecticut (HB 7199), Florida (HB 245 and SB 356), Illinois (SB 1659), Massachusetts (pending S 1264), New Jersey (pending A 1847) and New York (S 298A).  Because the Hawaii governor approved a rule requiring all children to receive ACIP recommended vaccines to attend school, HPV vaccine will be mandated in Hawaii unless families can get the legislature in 2020 to repeal this rule.

There were four bills filed in two states to mandate meningococcal vaccines. In New Jersey, bills A 1991 and S 941 to mandate meningococcal vaccines for attendance at four-year colleges are still pending.  In Texas, there were two useless bills to mandate meningococcal vaccines (HB 4068 and SB 1292) that died. Texas already requires meningococcal vaccines for 7th grade and college and legislators and families left the hearing scratching their heads over this bizarre request. Failed HB 1312 out of Colorado attempted to mandate meningococcal vaccines, as well as vaccines for hepatitis A and rotavirus.

A vaccine mandate for first responders in Texas (SB 830) was fortunately killed. NVIC opposes all adult mandates as a condition for employment.  Vaccines are already available to those who want them. 

A very odd and unreasonable bill in Texas (HB 3390) would have required temporary caregivers to have all of their pets vaccinated.  While the bill did ultimately pass, the bill sponsor fortunately responded to citizen requests and removed the erroneous pet vaccine requirement from the bill.

Restricting Vaccine Mandates

NVIC supported 18 bills in 13 states that would have restricted vaccine mandates.  Unfortunately, none of these passed. 

Seven bills were filed in Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma and Oregon to protect employees who want to refuse vaccination requirements. 

Hawaii SB 925 and SB 926 and Oklahoma HB 1112 would have prohibited new vaccine mandates to be issued by agency rule making.  While these bills failed to pass, passage of a similar bill in Hawaii next session could help undo the damage of the new mandates and exemption restriction that was passed by Hawaii Rule HAR 11-157.

Michigan (HB 4711) and Montana (HB 574) set their sights on prohibiting a requirement that foster care families vaccinate their families. While the Montana bill died, the Michigan bill is still pending and support could help tip this good bill over the edge to pass.

Connecticut, Idaho, Montana, Texas and Washington had bills filed to reject vaccine mandates for certain diseases or ingredients. Legislators are increasingly hearing concerns over the exploding vaccine schedule and controversial ingredients. Hopefully, next session there will be more progress on bills restricting or eliminating vaccine mandates.

Vaccine Tracking and Reporting (27 bills)

Forced inclusion, forced reporting, and OPT-OUT electronic vaccine tracking registries and enforcement systems continue to threaten the medical privacy of citizens and their legal right to delay or decline one or more federally recommended vaccines without being subjected to harassment or punishment.  The 2019 legislative session included 27 bills in this category that NVICAP posted and tracked and 9 of these bad bills passed.

Louisiana (SB 169) and Rhode Island (H 5541A and S 676A) both passed bills to require the tracking of adult vaccination status. The new law in Louisiana, already in effect as of June 11, 2019, is bad because it removes the existing requirement for consent before vaccine records can be shared, and it eliminates the current practice of purging of registry records after age of 21. It is a forced inclusion vaccine tracking system. Louisiana’s vaccine tracking system is now cradle to grave for everyone who lives there.  You can not opt-out of being tracked by the Louisiana health department, you can only opt-out of data sharing by the department, but the department will know everyone’s vaccination status under this law.

In a bright spot, forced adult vaccine tracking was defeated in New York (A 6847 and S 4994 and) thanks to many families in New York following NVIC’s action alert to contact committee members and their own legislators to stop A 6487 in the Assembly Health Committee.

Indiana passed controversial SB 228, which allows the state department to release information in the immunization data registry to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Indiana’s Immunization Registry Data Exclusion Request Form can be found here.

Florida passed HB 213, which took an already expansive and intrusive electronic vaccine tracking system, Florida Shots, and made it even worse. Health care practitioners are now required to “report” to the vaccine tracking registry, which allows their performance of vaccinating everyone to be monitored by the health department. It is important to take note of the fact that the new law permits confidential electronic health records held by your doctor about you to be data mined by the health department without your knowledge or consent, as HB 213 gave the green light for “the upload of data from existing automated systems.” Legislators were misled by bill supporters with the false notion that families can “opt-out” of tracking and, yet, the law still requires the sham of the state opt-out forms to be submitted to the health department.  In other words, those who don’t want to be tracked by the state have to send forms to the state requesting to opt-out, but still will be tracked by the health department as a registry refuser.  

HB 213 brought adults participating in higher education into the vaccine tracking system too. Also, the practice of Florida Shots providing every child born in the state with a registry file continues. NVIC is advocating for legislators to come back next session and change the registry to a true opt-in system. NVIC is urging the Florida legislature to fix this by prohibiting health care providers from releasing vaccination records and related personal information to the health department unless the patient or parent or guardian has willingly given opt-In written informed consent for the release of their records from their provider and agrees to inclusion in the tracking system.

Strong opposition to mandatory inclusion, assumed consent opt-out vaccine tracking systems is needed. Reaching a 100% vaccine compliance rate by all children and adults is the goal of these electronic tracking systems.

The Florida registry is already being used as an enforcement tool to target families not fully vaccinating with calls, letters and even home visits as evidenced by the Community Guide. “Using the Florida Shots Registry, which tracks each resident’s vaccinations, clinic staff identified infants and toddlers who were due for, or had missed, vaccinations…For children behind on their immunization series, clinic staff reached out to parents through phone calls, letters, and home visits encouraging them to schedule "catch-up" vaccinations.”

At what point will this information on residents of Florida be held without consent by the health department and used in the future to order forced vaccinations as the Mayor in New York City did this year?  The groundwork is already done as the health department has recorded ALL religious exemptions into the registry, even if a family has opted out of tracking! “All religious exemptions in Florida as of December 17, 2011 are registered in Florida SHOTS”. They use a child’s home address information to produce a map of where our children with religious exemptions live in Florida. Maps such as these were released and promoted by the media to fuel the removal of the personal belief exemption in California.

Families who are delaying or declining vaccination are being thrown out of pediatric practices throughout the state of Florida because the American Academy of Pediatrics and other trade associations have condemned vaccine exemptions and are lobbying for their removal.  Due to the registry reporting requirements for health care practitioners under HB 213, access to care will get worse for families because doctors, who still treat children who aren’t fully vaccinated, will be under more pressure to deny medical care to children whose parents decline to give them every CDC recommended vaccination.

 HMO’s are already trading records back and forth with the Florida Shots Registry and monitoring the performance of individual doctors on fully vaccinating their patients. “Our data exchange technology allows HMOs to instantly match their records to those already entered in the Florida SHOTS. In turn, any data not already entered in Florida SHOTS will be uploaded and any data not already in the hands of the HMO will be forwarded on.”  "Data exchange offers a quick, easy way for health maintenance organizations (HMOs) to determine immunization coverage levels within participating provider practices." 

Citizens in every state need to learn from what has happened in Florida and stop it from happening in their state. Google/YouTube is being fined 170 billion dollars for violating federal privacy laws and collecting data on children without parental consent, and it is time for state legislators to repeal assumed consent opt-out and forced inclusion intrusive electronic vaccine tracking systems that are also collecting and storing data on minor children without parental consent. 

Maryland passed a bill (HB 316) to require health care providers to report the vaccination status of patients to the state’s vaccine tracking registry. Oregon’s dentists, who were recently authorized to give vaccines through the passage of HB 2220, must also report to the state’s registry.

In Texas, first responders and EMS applicants have been drafted into the vaccine tracking system through the passage of HB 1256 and HB 1418.  While Texas’s registry is an opt-in system by law, these industries need to be watched to make sure they don’t start to discriminate against potential and current employees based on vaccination status information contained in the registry. Fortunately, legislators in both Texas (SB 1427) and Montana (HB 596) killed bills that would eliminate the current legal requirement to obtain opt-in consent to vaccine tracking. In addition, two bills died in Alabama (HB 522 and SB 256), which had tried to mandate that all vaccine providers put all vaccines given to everyone, past and present, into their vaccine tracking system.

NVIC recently submitted comments to Wyoming to oppose a proposed rule that would remove a section entitled “Patient Consent” for the Wyoming Immunization Information System, which prevents the health department from retaining individually identifiable information in the state vaccine tracking system for someone who has opted-out using a Use and Disclosure Restriction (F-12) form. The health department is using the rule making process to try to change the vaccine registry so that the department will retain a registry file on everyone - even if they deny consent for the registry - but immunization information still will be maintained in an “aggregate format.”

Legislators should not be fooled by government agency bureaucrats hiding behind the guise of security and privacy from deidentified data as “computer scientists have developed an algorithm that can pick out almost any American in databases supposedly stripped of personal information. Scientists at Imperial College London and Université Catholique de Louvain, in Belgium, reported in the journal Nature Communications that they had devised a computer algorithm that can identify 99.98 percent of Americans from almost any available data set with as few as 15 attributes, such as gender, ZIP code or marital status.  The potential for abuse from these electronic vaccine tracking systems for intended and unintended use of the data they contain is real.

Wyoming should not be storing information on anyone who does not want to be in the registry. NVIC requested a public hearing be held and, at the time of this writing, the deadline for the health department’s reply has passed and they have not responded as required.  Please watch the alert on the NVIC Advocacy Portal for updates.

Colorado, New York, Iowa, Montana, and Texas had failed bills that NVIC opposed which had attempted to expand vaccine tracking, remove required consent and force reporting to the electronic vaccine tracking registries.  

Vaccines (27 bills)

Authorizing More Professions to Administer More Vaccines

More states continue to authorize more pharmacists to expand services to include the administration of vaccines to younger children.  In 2019, both Arkansas (HB 1278) and Montana (HB 231) passed bills to allow pharmacists the ability to vaccinate children as young as seven and older. Texas fortunately killed a bill (SB 1813) that would have allowed pharmacists to administer vaccines to children seven years and older without a required doctor patient relationship.  Watch testimony against HB 3458 by NVIC Director of Advocacy Dawn Richardson at 1:20:35. This was one instance this past session where doctors and NVIC both opposed the same bill, but for very different reasons.

2019 also revealed a push to expand vaccine administrators to other professions outside of pharmacists. Oregon passed a bill (HB 2220) to allow dentists to administer vaccines.  Ohio’s pending bill (SB 178) would allow podiatrists to administer flu vaccines to anyone seven years old and older, and there are still opportunities to oppose SB 178. Wyoming had a failed bill, SF 55, that would have allowed the state health officer to authorize optometrists to administer vaccines.  Everybody wants a piece of the almost $18 billion dollar U.S. vaccine market in 2020.

Pennsylvania has pending bills (HB 91 and SB 274) still deserving opposition which are attempting to clear the way for pharmacists to vaccinate children as young as nine years old.  The most concerning bills still pending are in Wisconsin (AB 137 and SB 110), which would allow pharmacists to administer vaccines to young children under 6 years old.

Requiring Vaccine Promotion/Marketing

While the most active category in expansion of vaccine-related state legislation in 2018 were bills proposing to legally require the marketing and promotion of specific vaccines, this area in 2019 has significantly decreased. Unlike legal requirements to be vaccinated, these mandates require either public or private businesses to advertise or promote vaccine use. These vaccine promotion messages tend to adopt a one-size-fits all approach and rarely do vaccine marketing materials contain information about vaccine risks or how to prevent vaccine injuries.

Iowa broke new ground by passing a bill (HSB 86) to establish tax breaks by creating a bioscience development corporation as non-profit for tax purposes to funnel money into the development of several areas including vaccines and immunotherapeutics. Oregon, as of July 15, 2019, now requires (SB 488B) correctional facilities to offer flu vaccines to each inmate and prisoner.  Other bills, which proposed to mandate vaccine promotion and marketing by an entity other than the drug company itself, failed, as they should have, in Connecticut, Indiana, and Texas.

New Jersey still has pending bills to require health care facilities to implement flu vaccination programs for employees (A 1576), and to push a public awareness campaign to promote vaccines (A 5402 and S 4008). Please continue to ask legislators in New Jersey to oppose these bills.

Comparing Recent Sessions to 2019

total bills

221 bills and 5 sets of rules filed in state legislatures in 2019 represents the most proposed vaccine-related measures NVIC has recorded in the history of the NVIC Advocacy Portal. The number of states proposing bills that affected NVIC’s mission has increased since last year, from 36 states to 40 states and the District of Columbia.

It is important to note that some of the increase in numbers of vaccine-related bills filed can be attributed to the fact that the legislatures in four states - Montana, Nevada, North Dakota and Texas - meet biannually to consider new bills and do not hold a legislative session in even years. In 2019, 39 of the 221 bills filed were in Montana (9), Nevada (1) and Texas (29).  Regardless, this is still the most active year ever. NVIC correctly predicted in NVIC’s 2018 Annual Report on U.S. State Vaccine Legislation that we would see more vaccine-related bills introduced in 2019 than we have ever seen since the NVICAP was launched in 2010.

While there were more bills filed that NVIC opposed (137) than in any other legislative session, there were also more bills filed that NVIC supported than in any other session (77). There were many more positive bills filed in 2019 than any other year to expand vaccine exemptions and informed consent rights, to restrict addition of new vaccine mandates, to disallow adding vaccine mandates by health department rule making, to require doctors and other vaccine providers to report vaccine reactions, and to prohibit abuse claims, custody restrictions or discrimination for vaccine refusal.  

supported legislation

Enlightened legislators are not only listening to concerned constituents in greater numbers, many more are continuing to largely resist aggressive lobbying efforts by the vaccine industry, medical trade and other groups, whose positions and profits benefit from laws that force children and adults to use every vaccine sold by pharmaceutical companies and recommended by public health officials. 

Only 18 bad vaccine bills passed out of the 137 that NVIC opposed in the 2019 legislative session.

While the bills to remove or restrict vaccine exemptions got the bulk of the sensationalized press, only 3 of the 22 bills across 17 states to eliminate vaccine exemptions passed, and two of the 18 bills attempting to restrict exemptions passed.   

Individual citizen involvement in the legislative process, through personal communications and education of legislators, continues year after year to make a significant impact on the outcomes of vaccine related bills in state legislatures.  NVIC predicts that the increased attack on exemptions and informed consent rights this year will drive even more U.S. citizens to get more involved in the legislative process at every level in the years to come.  

legislation trends

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

NVIC expects that the vaccine industry will step up lobbying efforts to restrict or remove vaccine exemptions in 2020 since so many of their bills failed. Please become a registered user of the NVIC Advocacy Portal and check in often to learn about ways to personally educate your legislators when vaccine bills that affect your rights are moving in your state. Please encourage your family and all of your friends to do the same.

Clearly your efforts are making a much more significant difference than the media and those pushing “no exceptions” forced vaccination policies and laws are willing to admit, and your active participation is vital to protecting informed consent rights and vaccine choices in America. If you see inaccurate information in the media, please take the time to respond by making a constructive comment online. You can also email the journalist or call the media outlet and provide accurate, well referenced Diseases and Vaccines information and accurate state vaccine law information, which you can find on our website NVIC.org. NVIC’s illustrated and fully referenced Guide to Reforming Vaccine Policy and Law is another good vaccine education tool for legislators and friends and family, too.

Yes, the challenges are great but so are the opportunities to educate and empower legislators and residents of every state to defend vaccine freedom of choice. NVIC is committed to continuing to make that happen and we look forward to working with you through the NVIC Advocacy Portal to help you protect vaccine informed consent rights in your state in 2020 and beyond.


Read More

The Disappearing Medical Exemption to Vaccination

Posted: 9/17/2019 8:09:03 PM | with 7 comments

By Barbara Loe Fisher

To activate and view hyperlinked references, please click here once and then click any superscripted number below to access a hyperlinked reference, or scroll down to the bottom of the article to view all hyperlinked references.

Witnessing in their own words on the National Vaccine Information Center’s Cry for Vaccine Freedom Wall at NVIC.org, the suffering of people being abused by medical doctors enforcing one-size-fits-all vaccine policies is being revealed. Americans from all walks of life are describing the trauma of being threatened, coerced and punished by doctors violating the informed consent ethic,1 , 2, 3 who have abandoned the precautionary principle of “First, do no harm” 4, 5 and are behaving more like prison guards than compassionate healers. When doctors and legislators are taught to consider individuals unable to get vaccinated without being harmed as expendable, and treat people defending informed consent rights like public enemy Number One, 6 the practice of medicine and public health lawmaking has lost its way and become a prescription for prejudice, discrimination and abuse.

Here is one mother’s experience:

parents research

“When my first child was born, we had him vaccinated on schedule. After a routine visit he had a reaction to one, which we believe was either DTaP or MMR. He screamed all night and it was not his typical fussy cry. He was different.

More than one doctor ignored our worry and never reported the incident. They expected us to continue vaccinating and we were told horror stories at each visit about kids who had died from being unvaccinated.

We stopped vaccinating him at 15 months when he was showing developmental delays. He had some autistic tendencies and a speech delay. He had to go to speech therapy for 5 years. Thankfully not diagnosed autistic. After we stopped vaccinating him the behaviors got less and less.

When my daughter was born we decided we weren’t vaccinating her based on my son’s reaction and doing research on vaccine ingredients. After she was born, we were harassed by the nurse because we wouldn’t give our minutes-old daughter the hepatitis B vaccine. She made a scene and my husband had to stand watch over our baby. We were told if we didn’t catch the kids up on their vaccines within the year at the pediatrician’s office we’d be dismissed from the practice.

After 10 years of being patients there, not only were we harassed and kicked out, there was no responsibility taken by the doctors for harming my son. To this day we have no pediatrician that will accept our unvaccinated yet healthy children.”  7

Doctors Are Abusing Their Power and Our Trust

Does the thought of going to the doctor or taking your child to a pediatrician fill you with anxiety or even fear because your doctor refuses to listen to you, makes you feel stupid and doesn’t seem to care about your child’s individual health needs? Are you concerned that your doctor will threaten or deny you or your child medical care if you decline even one of the dozens of doses of vaccines that government health officials tell your doctor to give to every patient?

worried parents

You are not alone. Trust is the key to a positive relationship with a doctor, especially if you are a parent doing everything you can to keep the child you love healthy. We are all taught to trust doctors with the wellbeing of our physical bodies and the bodies of our children. Doctors hold the most power in the doctor-patient relationship, but they should not be allowed to abuse that power. Finding an enlightened, compassionate doctor, who treats you with respect in a personalized patient-centered practice, is one of the most empowering and life-saving actions you can take. 8, 9

In a study published by the National Institutes of Health in 2015, researchers found that one in three people in the U.S. avoid seeking medical care because they don’t like the way doctors made them feel and have low confidence in their doctors’ competence.10 , 11 Struggling with chronic health problems and dissatisfaction with medical advice for how to heal or stay well are main reasons for why between 25 and 40 percent of Americans and Europeans embrace holistic health alternatives like dietary supplements, meditation, yoga, spiritual healing, chiropractic, massage therapy, acupuncture and homeopathy to maintain health. 12, 13, 14

Polls Reveal Public’s Doubts About Vaccines, Big Pharma, Government

Dislike of how doctors treat patients and concerns about the medical establishment’s cozy relationship with the pharmaceutical industry 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 has definitely eroded the people’s trust in the effectiveness and safety of prescription drugs and vaccines.20 A 2019 Harris poll revealed that 45 percent of American adults doubt the safety of vaccines and 27 percent of those cited either knowledge of past secrets and wrongdoing by the pharmaceutical industry or by the government.  21, 22, 23, 24, 25  The trust factor is further damaged when people find out that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) fast tracks vaccines to licensure 26, 27, 28, 29 and public health officials are electronically monitoring every vaccine they do and do not take, 30, 31, 32 and doctors are being financially bribed or sanctioned by HMOs and government agencies 33 to make sure that every child gets every one of the 69 doses of 16 vaccines recommended by the Centers for Disease control (CDC) right on schedule. 34, 35, 36

But it is the authoritarian abuse of power held by doctors over patients and parents of minor children that does the most damage to trust. Here is one parent’s description of broken trust:

serious doctor

“My pediatrician, in New York, came highly recommended to me by a colleague. Initially he seemed like a knowledgeable and skilled physician. However, when my daughter approached the CDC recommended vaccine schedule dates and I began asking questions (God forbid!) about vaccine safety and efficacy, this doctor turned into a bully. He was insistent that the benefits of vaccines outweighed the risks and that my daughter was at risk of hospitalization or worse if I declined.

Whether I brought peer reviewed medical journal articles or other questions or information to his attention, the bottom line was I needed to vaccinate. At one encounter, he outright threatened to remove me from his practice if I didn’t comply with the CDC schedule. Apparently, the bonus he was to receive for ensuring that his patients all fully complied with the full vaccine schedule was more important than the relationship he had built with me and my child. It was more important to vaccinate than to have any kind of role whatsoever regarding my child’s wellbeing.

I left the practice after I was threatened.” 37

Pharma, Health Care Industry Biggest Political Lobby

The health care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. 38 and medical doctors are the highest paid profession. 39, 40 The pharmaceutical industry, which depends upon medical trade partners to prescribe drugs and vaccines, is the biggest lobby influencing law and policymaking by the federal government 41 and state legislatures. 42 , 43

In the past two decades, Big Pharma has spent more than $4 billion lobbying Capitol Hill and federal agencies for special treatment, nearly twice as much as any other industry. If lobbying by hospitals, nursing homes, health professionals, and HMOs are included, it comes to more than $8 billion that has been poured into politically influencing public health policy and regulations in this country. 44 Congress has made it easy for federal agencies to develop lucrative public-private business partnerships between the pharmaceutical industry and the federal government. 45, 46, 47

Vaccines Profitable Because of Mandates, Liability Shield

Vaccines, especially vaccines mandated by governments, are among the most profitable pharmaceutical products being sold by multi-national corporations in a global $36 billion dollar vaccine market that some forecasters predict will nearly double in size by 2024. 48, 49, 50 That market is particularly profitable in the U.S. because vaccines, which are licensed and recommended by the federal government, are the only commercial products that state governments legally require every parent to purchase and give to their children as a condition for attending school. 51

mother baby doctor

Plus vaccine manufacturers are the only corporations selling products in this country that cannot be sued, even when there is evidence the company could have made a product less likely to injure or kill people. 52, 53 Doctors and medical workers who give children and pregnant women federally recommended vaccines can’t be sued either. 54

With no liability, at the very least doctors should feel a moral obligation and have the legal right to protect vulnerable people - especially infants and children – from suffering crippling and sometimes deadly vaccine reactions.  But sadly, state legislatures in California 55 and New York 56 have passed laws not only eliminating the legal right for parents to obtain personal belief vaccine exemptions for children to attend daycare and school, but they have cruelly taken away the legal right for private doctors to exercise professional judgment and conscience when granting children a medical exemption to vaccination. 57, 58, 59 In 2019, Hawaii became another state prohibiting children from attending school with medical exemptions that do not strictly conform with narrow vaccine contraindications approved by the federal government. 60, 61

Doctors Becoming Agents of the State Enforcing Vaccine Policy

If the politically powerful Pharma-led forced vaccination lobby gets its way, all personal belief vaccine exemptions will be stripped from public health laws. Doctors employed by state health departments will be given the authority to deny vaccine vulnerable children a school education if a doctor in private practice has granted a medical exemption to vaccination for a reason that is not approved by the federal government.

The goal is to force all doctors to become agents of the state without the power to depart from government policy, even if implementing government policy will increase the risk of injury or death for an individual. It means that when you find an enlightened and compassionate doctor, in the future you may not be able to get a medical exemption to vaccination, even when you and your doctor agree there are genetic, biological and environmental risk factors that place you or your child at high risk for having a vaccine reaction. 62

The plan is to make the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices – also known as ACIP – a de facto vaccine law-making body in the U.S. for every state.

Who and what Is the ACIP?

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)

Established in 1964, the ACIP is a federal advisory committee of 15 doctors specializing in vaccinology, infectious diseases and related fields, who are appointed to a four-year term by the Secretary of Health to develop vaccine recommendations approved by the CDC for giving FDA licensed vaccines to children and adults. 63 In addition to 15 voting members, there are eight ex-officio members representing federal government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, FDA, Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense, as well as 26 non-voting liaison representatives from the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and insurance industries, medical trade and public health associations, state health departments and academic doctors employed by major universities that often receive large sums of money from pharmaceutical companies and research grants from the Department of Health. 64

vaccine doses

Over the past 55 years, this federal advisory committee has been given more power by Congress and state legislatures to affect the lives of all Americans. The ACIP has voted to increase the number of federally recommended vaccines that doctors routinely give to infants and children from a few doses of six vaccines in 1964 to dozens of doses of 16 vaccines today. 65 When ACIP makes a recommendation with the approval of the CDC, medical trade associations like the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 66 obediently follow suit and adopt those recommendations as “standard of care.” 67 When ACIP recommendations are endorsed by other influential vaccine promotion arms of government, like the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) 68, 69 and National Vaccine Program Office ((NVPO) and become “standard of care” for all doctor’s offices, pharmacies, hospitals, nursing homes and other medical facilities in the country, a very wide vaccination net has been cast for every child and adult in America. 70, 71

Pharma Taking ACIP Recommendations to the Bank

The cost to comply with ACIP recommendations and fully vaccinate a child has skyrocketed from about $30 in 1983 72, 73 to nearly $3,000 in 2019. 74

The pharmaceutical industry literally takes ACIP recommendations to the bank.

In 1986, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act gave vaccine manufacturers partial liability protection for harm caused by vaccines that the ACIP recommends for children; 7576 in 1994 Congress established the Vaccines for Children Program that now, every year, uses $4 billion dollars in taxpayer money to purchase ACIP recommended vaccines from drug companies and provide them for free to uninsured and underinsured children; 77 and in 2010, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act that requires all health insurance companies to provide ACIP recommended vaccines for free to patients. 78

Clearly, every “universal use” vaccine recommendation that ACIP makes – such as giving all children an annual flu shot or multiple doses of expensive vaccines like for chickenpox, HPV, pneumococcal and meningococcal 79 - is worth billions of dollars to drug companies selling liability free vaccines in the U.S., especially when states automatically add ACIP recommended vaccines to daycare and school attendance mandates. And now that state legislatures are moving to eliminate personal belief vaccine exemptions and put doctors in handcuffs so they can’t give medical exemptions, there is no limit to profit making as scores of new vaccines are fast tracked by the FDA to licensure 80 that will be recommended by the ACIP for universal use, including genetically engineered vaccines for HIV, RSV, strep A and B, herpes simplex, e-coli, TB and many, many more. 81, 82

ACIP recommendations are a drug company stockholder’s dream and have become a parent’s worst nightmare.

Conflicts of Interest on Vaccine Advisory Committees

conflict of interest

An investigation by the U.S. House Government Reform Committee with a report published in 2000 found serious conflicts of interest between the pharmaceutical industry and voting members of the two most important federal vaccine advisory committees: the ACIP, which reviews and votes on the quality of scientific evidence used to make national vaccine policy, and the FDA Vaccines & Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which reviews and votes on the quality of scientific evidence used to license new vaccines. 83, 84 Those findings have been independently confirmed by journalists investigating conflicts of interest between the pharmaceutical industry and the federal government. 85, 86

Today, government-appointed members of both the ACIP and FDA vaccine advisory committees still can be given a conflict of interest waiver by the Department of Health so they can vote on the licensing of vaccines and make national vaccine policy that is turned into public health law. 87, 88, 89, 90

So, what is the quality of the scientific evidence that the CDC’s ACIP uses to make national vaccine policy promoted by the CDC, which gets turned into public health law in your state?

CDC’s ACIP Approved Vaccine Contraindications Almost Non-Existent

Let’s start with vaccine contraindications, which are health conditions the CDC’s ACIP tells doctors are the only reasons why you or your child absolutely should not get a vaccine.

Basically, under ACIP guidelines, the CDC considers almost no health condition or vaccine reaction history to be an absolute contraindication to vaccination, and that is what your doctor has been taught to believe as well. 91

The CDC’s ACIP tells doctors that only pregnancy or severe immunodeficiency is a contraindication to getting live virus vaccines like MMR and varicella zoster, but inactivated vaccines are not an absolute contraindication for pregnant women or people with severe immunodeficiency. 92 This is a very important fact because, often, the pharma-medical trade lobby tries to convince legislators that all ACIP recommended vaccines must be mandated for children to protect pregnant women and the severely immune compromised, 93, 94 who cannot get any vaccines at all, but clearly that is not true.

serious doctor

According to the CDC’s ACIP, there are only two types of vaccine reactions that are absolute contraindications to getting re-vaccinated: 95

Number One: A life threatening allergic anaphylactic reaction that occurs within minutes of vaccination.

Number Two: Development of encephalopathy, such as prolonged seizures, coma and other brain dysfunction, within seven days of receiving pertussis-containing vaccines – but only if the doctor believes the encephalopathy is “not attributable to another cause.”

CDC’s ACIP Vaccine Precautions: A Short List

The CDC publishes a very short list of health conditions that doctors are told are not absolute contraindications - only “precautions” - because they “might increase the risk of a serious adverse reaction, cause diagnostic confusion, or might compromise the ability of the vaccine to produce immunity.” 96

Only one CDC-approved universal precaution applies to all vaccines: if a person has a “moderate or severe acute illness with or without fever.”

But that is only a precaution, not a contraindication, and what constitutes a “moderate or severe acute illness” is left up to the discretion of the doctor. To make matters more confusing, the CDC recommends that hospitalized patients should be vaccinated if they are “not acutely moderately or severely ill.”

Maybe that is why, when I was hospitalized for emergency kidney stone surgery and under heavy sedation, I was grilled twice in the middle of the night by two different teams of doctors and nurses about exactly when I had gotten my last flu shot. And maybe that is why hepatitis B negative mothers in the last stages of labor are being badgered about giving their newborns a hepatitis B shot immediately after birth, 97 and why sick people in an emergency room are being harassed about catching up on every vaccine the ACIP recommends.

The message the CDC sends to doctors is that 99 percent of the U.S. population is a candidate for vaccination 100 percent of the time. To simplify, many doctors, pharmacists and other vaccine providers, who cannot be sued if a vaccine they gave a person injures or kills that person, just ignore precautions because the CDC downplays their significance by incoherently describing vaccine precautions like this:

“A person might experience a more severe reaction to the vaccine than would have otherwise been expected; however, the risk of this happening is less than the risk expected with a contraindication.” 98

Say what?

Has your once healthy child gotten sick and then slowly regressed into chronic poor health after previous vaccinations and you want to avoid giving more vaccines that could make your child’s health worse? Sorry, no medical vaccine exemption for your child.

CDC’s ACIP Makes It Easy for Doctors to Bully Mothers

The CDC’s short list of vaccine contraindications and precautions is one reason why doctors have been given a green light to emotionally batter mothers trying to protect their vaccine injured children from further harm like this mother, who described her traumatizing experience on NVIC’s Cry for Vaccine Freedom Wall:

“Following my son's first birthday, November 16, 2017 we went to his 12 month check-up. Although we were not fully knowledgeable about the effects or damage caused by vaccines, we knew enough to know not to vaccinate all at once, or more than 3 shots at the time. Suffice to say, our son received three shots that day including the MMR and DtaP.

“Immediately thereafter, my son fell asleep after an hour of agonizing cries. That day was the last day my son babbled/talked (said mama, dada); held his bottle; reacted or responded to his name; ate (we would make his food at home from scratch which he loved, especially his veggies, and stopped attempting to crawl.

“My son had a fever of 104 for almost two weeks, a severe rash on his entire body, cradle cap and thereafter caught an ear infection. We contacted his pediatrician…during this sick visit I explained to our doctor that we believed our son had an adverse reaction to the vaccines and explained all the differences we noticed immediately following the shots.

“She quickly dismissed my concerns and responded with, “He’s a perfect little guy, he’ll be eating a burger in no time.” I replied, “Yes, my son is perfect but he is no longer the baby I gave birth to - something is not right here.” I was crying and awfully vulnerable; however, once again, it fell upon deaf ears.

“Her response was, “He’s up for a vaccine, are you going to vaccinate?” I looked up at her in disbelief and replied, “Over my dead body!” That was the last time my son visited this doctor, who also did not provide preventive care for my child and neglected to report or make a record of this adverse reaction (vaccine injury) to the vaccines received at her office.” 99

It gets worse.

CDC’s ACIP Directs Doctors to Ignore Illness, Signs of Vaccine Reactions

There is a separate, much longer list the CDC publishes entitled “conditions incorrectly perceived as contraindications or precautions to vaccination.” 100 This list directs doctors to ignore many signs and symptoms of serious vaccine reactions, current illnesses and brain and immune system disorders that, in the absence of methodologically sound scientific research, could very well increase risks of vaccine reactions for vulnerable individuals

If your doctor has become one of those vaccination hardliners wielding a syringe like a sword by ignoring vaccine precautions and strictly observing what the CDC describes as “incorrectly perceived contraindications,” then:

  • If you or your child are coming down with or recovering from a respiratory or gastrointestinal infection and have a fever or are taking antibiotics 101102103104 and want to delay getting vaccinated: No medical exemption for you.
  • If your baby was born prematurely, weighs only five pounds, and you want to delay vaccination until your baby is older and stronger: 105, 106, 107, 108 No medical exemption for your baby. 109
  • If you are a pregnant healthcare worker and don’t want to get a hepatitis B shot or flu shot because you have a personal and family history of autoimmunity: 110 No medical exemption for you. 111, 112, 113
  • If you or your child has suffered a fever over 105 degrees F, or a collapse or shock-like state, 114 or a seizure, 115, 116 or persistent inconsolable crying for more than 3 hours after receiving a pertussis containing vaccine: 117 No medical exemption for you.
  • If you or your child have a serious autoimmune disorder like lupus or rheumatoid arthritis: 118, 119, 120, 121, 122 No medical exemption for you.
  • If you or your child have mild HIV infection: 123 No medical exemption for you.
  • If you or your child have a neurological disorder like cerebral palsy, developmental delays or medication-controlled seizures: 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131 No medical exemption for you.

With the CDC’s ACIP telling doctors it is safe to vaccinate 99 percent of people 100 percent of the time and that most bad health outcomes that occur after vaccination are “just a coincidence,” it is no wonder that less than one percent of bad health outcomes after vaccination are ever reported to the government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). 132

doctor patient hands

In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court majority declared that FDA licensed and CDC recommended vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe,” so vaccine manufacturers are immune from lawsuits even when there is evidence a manufacturer could have made a vaccine less likely to injure and kill people. 133 Under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, the government has paid more than $4 billion to children and adults who have been harmed by ACIP recommended and state mandated vaccines.134

Emerging Science Confirms We Are Not All the Same

Emerging science is revealing that what pharmaceutical companies, medical trade associations and government health officials have taught doctors, legislators and the public to believe is true about vaccine risks and failures 135 is not the whole truth.

We are not all the same and we do not all respond the same way to infectious diseases or vaccines.

Our responses to infectious diseases and the risk for complications can vary, depending upon our genes, environment, and age and health at the time of infection. 136, 137 That is why malnourished, vitamin deficient children living in impoverished environments, for example, are at higher risk for complications from measles and other infections. 138, 139, 140

Our risk of having a vaccine reaction can range from zero to 100 percent. It depends upon the genes we were born with; our epigenetic history and microbiome DNA; the environments we live in; our age and health at the time of vaccination, and the type and how many vaccines we get. 141, 142, 143, 144

Some of us get vaccinated and still get infected with and transmit infections like measles, pertussis and influenza to other people, sometimes without showing any symptoms at all. So much for vaccine acquired herd immunity. 145, 146, 147

Where Is the Good Science?

Where IS the good science to back up the scientific validity that the extremely short list of ACIP-approved contraindications to vaccination should be codified into law by state legislatures and used to take away the legal right for conscientious doctors to grant school children medical vaccine exemptions?

When your doctor orders you or your child to get vaccinated or be kicked out on the street without medical care, that doctor does not know if the odds will be in your favor or if you will become a vaccine reaction statistic – and neither does the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP).

Your doctor also does not know whether the vaccinations given will actually work, or you will be become a silent carrier of disease that you can transmit to other people without knowing it. 148, 149

The disappearing medical exemption to vaccination is a symptom of a much larger problem. A recent Gallup poll confirmed that the pharmaceutical industry is the most poorly regarded industry in America and the government and health care industry are a close second and third. 150 The people are getting fed up with being lied to and exploited by institutions they have been taught to trust.

It is time for enlightened, compassionate doctors with a conscience to join hands with the people 151, 152 and push back against one-size-fits-all vaccine policies created by government health officials that are not anchored with good science and are being turned into state law.

We, the people, have the human right and must have the legal right to exercise voluntary informed consent to medical risk taking, no matter what a doctor orders us to do to our bodies or the bodies of our children.

NVIC stands with the tens of thousands of Americans, who are defending vaccine informed consent rights in every state in this country. We are committed to protecting freedom of thought, speech, religious belief and conscience because those are civil liberties that define who we are as a nation.

It’s your health, your family, your choice.

And our mission continues: No forced vaccination. Not in America.

Note: This commentary provides referenced information and perspective on a topic related to vaccine science, policy, law or ethics being discussed in public forums and by U.S. lawmakers.  The websites of the  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) provide information and perspective of federal agencies responsible for vaccine research, development, regulation and policymaking.

Click the plus sign at the bottom of this page to view and/or post comments on our commentary.
Click to View and Access References

Read More

Comments

Make a Difference Support NVIC

NVIC is 100% funded by donations. Please give.
Help educate families about preventing vaccine injury and death by donating to NVIC today.

Discover How You Can Take Action to Support Our Efforts

Support NVIC!


Connect with us!

  • NVIC Pinterest
  • NVIC Facebook
  • NVIC Twitter
  • NVIC Youtube
  • NVIC Instagram

Ask 8 Kiosk & Educational Marketplace

Ask 8 Questions

Visit our Ask 8 Kiosk to explore a variety of FREE educational materials, from posters and brochures to embeddable web graphics and other resources.

View FREE Downloads