I'm very curious how this will play out. I do think parents should vaccinate if possible but I don't believe in forcing them to do so. It brings up civil liberty issues that I'm uncomfortable with, but that's an aside as this legislation isn't about forcing them.

However, I do believe if parents want to send their kids to public school, they should be required to vaccinate them. If they feel strongly enough, they can cough up private school tuition or home school. It's not fair to expose other kids.

It's not a perfect solution as unvaccinated kids can still go to stores, pharmacies, amusement parks, etc. but it's a good start.

As it currently stands only Mississippi and West Virginia do not allow parents to opt out of vaccinations due to "personal belief"

This thread may head into Hot Topics debate/territory. Be careful.

This post was edited by blfenton on Thu, Feb 5, 15 at 15:23

I totally believe that it needs to be made a law that children receive immunizations. Including homeschooled kids, who frequent playgrounds, places of worship, airplanes, grocery stores, restaurants, Disneyland, etc.

As for being a parent I would never think of not doing it..

It really sends mixed messages when physicians who are politicians make statements that refute medical science in order to gain political favor, then when their feet are held to the fire switch their stand to align with the preponderance of scientific study. Good grief! It's no wonder lay people make decisions based on "feelings".

I thought at one time kids couldn't enter public school in Ohio without all appropriate immunizations, unless there was medical reason behind not having them. Apparently that isn't the case now?

I hope so too...just had a case break out in mi...private daycare....and now any teacher, child, not immunized, cannot attend for 21days....so now those parents are going to pay dearly for home care...maybe now they will wish they had thought twice..?

I support that immunization be required to attend public school except in the case of severe illness of a child, such as one with low resistance from leukemia. It is a privilege to be able to attend the free, taxpayer supported public schools, and if a parent does not want to immunize for personal or religious reasons, then the child should not be allowed to attend the public schools.

I was so sorry to hear that Governor Chris Christy bowed to political expediency and stated that though his kids are immunized, parental preference should be an option. He had my vote till I heard about that! I won't be supporting someone who cannot risk losing a vote or two to protect the children of our nation.

I live in California and fully support the proposed legislation.

I was glad to see that the organization Autism Speaks is now encouraging vaccinations. Hopefully, that will spur some of the "personal beliefs" folks to do the right thing. I am all for individual rights, but not when it endangers others -- especially children and the infirm.

Civil liberties end when you're making other people sick or more. It's pretty simple. When you violate others' rights to being healthy, your freedom ends.

And proven again and again, anything is a "hot topic" to some around here! LOL

I'm a bit mixed on this. I agree with immunizations and I did immunize my daughter. However, when she was a baby she had the DPT vaccination. She had a bad reaction to this vaccine and the doctor said it was probably the Pertusis (sp?) also known as whooping cough. He said he couldn't be sure but when there was a reaction it was normally due to the P in DPT. So the booster shots have always been DT and not the P. She had no further issues. Fast forward to high school and I was really harassed by the school nurse. I even received a letter from the school and county stating I would be prosecuted if I didn't get her vaccinated for Pertusis (whooping cough). I had a note from the doctor back when she was in kindergarten. But they thought I was against all vaccines. I think I convinced them that I wasn't against vaccines because if I was, I wouldn't have had any vaccines.

I'm hoping the law will take into account those rare instances where there is an allergic reaction. In my case, it was only one part of the vaccine and she was able to receive all other vaccines just fine. On a side note, it does tick me off when others do not get their kids vaccinated. She is a teacher and when she was pregnant whooping cough was going around her school. It is very dangerous to the unborn when a mother gets whooping cough. In the end, there were no kids in her class with whooping cough (or in her part of the building). Common sense really does need to prevail. If a person is allergic, then that part of the vaccine should be waived.

My only comment is that I would hope the private schools wouldn't accept kids that have not been vaccinated either. Why should they have to take the kids the public schools don't want?

If you don't want to vaccinate your child, keep them home and teach them yourself.

I'm curious how it will work where I live. The New York Times had an article a few days ago stating some schools in the area reporting 40%-50% of their kindergarteners not being fully vaccinated. That's a lot of kids to reshuffle to other schools. It's mostly wealthy families too so I imagine some will just have a doctor write a note.

The law will take into consideration medical issues. There are kids who can't be vaccinated but it *should* be such a small amount that herd immunity still stands and protects everyone. But not when the opt-out rate is in statistically significant amounts.

Like I said, I am 100% for vaccinations. I don't like the idea that the government can force someone to inject themselves or their child, but I also think that refusing it should take away some of your liberties like access to public schools. I don't believe in forcing people but there needs to be some repercussion or penalty and some additional safety measures taken for it since it does endanger other people. I've already seen that taking place. A lot of pediatricians and other health services won't accept unvaccinated kids.

I don't think this is a hot topic. It's affecting a lot of people at this point.

This post was edited by chi83 on Fri, Feb 6, 15 at 12:02

Everyone seems to be mostly in agreement here. We need to vaccinate to protect our children, families and for the greater good.

I was thinking about my dear MIL in assisted living. What if a contagious child visited "grandma" there? OK, many would be immune, but for those not immune, the consequences could be tragic. Just another reason to support vaccination.

As I reported in another thread, I'm not immune as per a recent blood test, so I'll be getting the vaccine today.

Given that this is the first time that I have ever indicated that something could be considered a Hot Topic I'm not sure how the statement...
"And proven again and again, anything is a "hot topic" to some around here! LOL" really applies in this situation.

Those who disagree with vaccinations can get quite heated about it being their right to not vaccinate their children. These days you just have to turn on the news or do some research to read some of their arguments against vaccinations. Do they make sense?, not to me they don't but emotions can and are running high on this discussion.

I don't know. I think most children can be safely vaccinated with the common vaccines that have been around for thirty or more years. I'm ok with schools keeping children out who are not vaccinated unless there is an immediate threat to a child such as a deathly allergy. I don't want to see it dictated that children must get all vaccines. For instance, my children will not be getting the Gardasil vaccine. IMO, that vaccine was ramrodded through and not thoroughly researched. I've read some scary stories. I don't want the government or some other idiot telling me I have to get this for my children and have their health ruined. i want the choice to say 'no.

" ... the government ... or some other idiot ..." ??

Around here ... fewer and fewer people are voting.

And even fewer contacting their legislators/offices in between elections.

Yet we claim that we value our freedom ... and democracy.

They have a price - ask the folks who fought in WWII.

Actually ... it was just before that that I had measles - the kind that grants immunity (but for how long?).

ole joyful

I just read this and posted it on another Forum as well. Hopefully, now that the Autism Speaks organization is advising parents that vaccines don't cause Autism, it will convince those who were fearful, that they need to vaccinate their children.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/autism-speaks-urges-parents-vaccinate-children/story?id=28751485&cid=fb_gma

I don't what is true but "they" are never going to admit fault. If there is fault they will quietly remove the harmful thing and put in another and we won't know if one is dangerous for 20 or 30 years. If they admit fault just think of the millions/billions they would lose in lawsuits.

Years ago when they played ball on real grass Lou Gerhigs disease was discovered. The majority of the victims were athletes and coaches that played on the fertilized grounds. They believed at that time it was caused by Milorganite fertilizer. Later they labeled "do not use on foodstuff". Now you can use it in your vegetable gardens. Now if you ask a nursery person about it they will say, that didn't happen. I know it did because I was using it at that time and read about it in the newspaper.

When they first started talking about vaccinations possibly causing Autism in some children, I remember seeing people interviewed on some news program and their children were perfectly normal, healthy, mentally on track for their age group children and then they went and had their shots, they immediately began to show mental signs of Autism. I don't see how you could even convince those parents in those particular instances that the vaccination was not behind their child's sudden, out of the blue, Autism. I believe that there is a risk but that is true with any medication...they all have possible side effects. The risk of dying from the diseases children are vaccinated against is far greater than the risk of dying from or becoming ill from the vaccinations.

I read a doctor's theory (sorry I can't recall his name to cite a link) and I saw some possibility with what he was suggesting. He felt that vaccines definitely do act as a catalyst to a very small percentage of children, who for some other reason, have a predisposition to Autism. He said that perhaps some part of the vaccine causes an allergic type reaction that 'activates' the Autism earlier than it usually (around age 3) becomes evident.

Scientists have also drawn a link between heavy marijuana use and schizophrenia. They claim that most marijuana users will never have a risk of becoming schizophrenic, but that in the percentage of people who have a predisposition to it (perhaps a genetic link), the THC is now a suspected direct trigger to activating episodes of psychosis and sometimes, full blown schizophrenia.

We had a dog that was perfectly healthy until she suddenly started getting seizures. They continued about twice weekly for several months, then started slowing down in occurrence. The following year they started up again, repeating the pattern of several every week or so, before tailing off. On the third year we finally realized her seizures started within 48 hours of receiving her yearly Rabies vaccine. The vet suspected she must be predisposed to epilepsy and that the vaccine was causing an adverse effect that triggered the seizures. He never gave her any more Rabies shots and her seizures slowly got further and further apart until she only had one or two a year.

So I definitely believe that vaccines can cause adverse reactions in both people and pets, that manifest in conditions which might not otherwise have been evident until later, or maybe not all, without that 'trigger.'

I worried about the odds that vaccinating my children could possibly cause an adverse effect of triggering a predisposition to Autism. But I guess I worried more about the possibilities of what might happen without any vaccines, after my own sister's deafness occurred during her bout with measles at age six.

"I read a doctor's theory (sorry I can't recall his name to cite a link) and I saw some possibility with what he was suggesting."
and

"So I definitely believe that vaccines can cause adverse reactions"

When there's no proof (an outcome that can be demonstrated and reproduced repeatedly), there's no connection. With vaccine interactions or acting as a trigger (other than allergic reactions in a very small percentage of patients), there's no proof. Until there is, the risks that are so widely cited and speculated are nonexistent and false. That "austism connection" study was phony. It has been widely discredited by the medical research community for having been faked, yet the public won't let go of it.

Emma, my reading suggests there's no known cause of Lou Gehrig's disease. The connection to grass and fertilizer you describe is false. For some number of patients (but not all), it's inherited. Better to not spread such specious comments. Neither are there conspiracies, but believe what you want.

Snidely, if you don't believe vaccinations can cause adverse reactions in some people...maybe you need to do more research. Honestly I don't think anyone is saying that vaccinations CANNOT cause adverse reactions in anyone. That's just totally wrong to say that! Any doctor will tell you that there is a small risk. In the case of vaccinations, the benefits far exceed the risk ratio.

Antibiotics are a wonderful medicine but people have died from them. A friend of mind almost died from a tetanus shot when he was a kid, he swelled up like a balloon.

The rabies vaccination is well documented to cause reactions in some dogs causing sudden neurotic behavior immediately follow the rabies vaccination. This is not some FAKE claim either. It is, or it should be anyway, common knowledge.

snidely, you're preaching to the choir, lol! If you saw my post a few spots higher, at 20:59, I was happy to report that even the organization 'Autism Speaks' is advising that parents should vaccinate their children. Like them, I strongly believe that vaccines do not CAUSE Autism.

However, I just as strongly believe that vaccines, in a very small percentage of predisposed people (by allergy or some unknown genetic condition) can cause an adverse reaction, or even POSSIBLY trigger the earlier onset of a condition they may have developed later. Therefore, I must disagree with your statement "With vaccine interactions or acting as a trigger (other than allergic reactions in a very small percentage of patients), there's no proof."

I'd hazard a guess that millions of migraine sufferers were once thought of as being ridiculous when they told their doctors they knew their migraines were 'triggered' by weather, allergies or certain foods. Although there is still no actual scientific proof, the medical community now accepts that indeed this is the case, with some people who are predisposed to migraines.

One of my siblings, (a retired research scientist) says that scientists must always be very careful to differentiate between stating "We have found no proof that..." and "We have disproven that..." because the former means "a lack of ability at that time, to prove a possibility might exist" and the latter means "the ability to disprove a possibility will ever exist." He said the second statement is made in much, much fewer circumstances and does not apply to their current knowledge about vaccines.

picky, my understanding of what's in your last sentence is a bit different.

Here's a line of thinking I see on this board a lot :"Drinking pomegranate juice prevents strokes because I drink it everyday and haven't had a stroke". Or, "it's ok to take 50 times the maximum dosage of Vitamin K every day, I've been doing it for 30 years and I feel fine".

In the absence of proof, an assertion is false. The reason it's wrong (or not right), or what is right instead, doesn't need to be known because false is the starting point.

Sometimes in investigating an assertion, another cause is found and the first assertion is "proven" to be false. Then, "we have disproven" is said.

"We have found no proof" means just that and nothing more. The assertion started out false, and is still false, and not enough is known to say why it is what it is. Or isn't.

You can believe and guess at whatever you like, I'm happy to instead follow advice of people based on what they know and don't know instead. I think we more agree than disagree, even if not, that's ok too.

I'm all for science, but sometimes science is wrong because the technology just isn't developed enough. How many times have we thought something was safe only to find out it was harmful later on? Cigarettes, Thalidomide, Radium. Many, many, many deaths have been attributed to those things thought to be totally safe and even healthy at the time.

For that reason, I have a healthy dose of skepticism when it comes to not having any proof because that's just a reflection of current knowledge and technology, not future. I think it's foolish to rely 100% on current scientific thought because that is always changing. Science needs to be heavily considered, of course, but some critical thinking is important as well. Just because it hasn't been proven yet doesn't mean it won't be, and you can't always reverse the damage that is done.

That isn't to say I don't believe in vaccinations. There needs to be a calculation for everything to weigh the rewards against the possible risk, and I believe vaccinations are worth the risk, at least the ones that have been around for decades.

I sent this thread to my brother (a retired research scientist) and asked him to offer his point of view to those of us who have posted.

He disputed the notion that "In the absence of proof, an assertion is false," stating that the absence of proof means that proof was simply not 'found' and not that proof doesn't 'exist.'

Regarding our discussion about vaccines, he told me that in 1976, there was suddenly an increase in cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome. Scientists knew that Guillain-Barre Syndrome posed a very small risk of occurrence in anyone with a compromised immune system or anyone who had recently had a respiratory illness or influenza.

But in 1976 it also occurred in a number of healthy people, without compromised immune systems, who had not recently had any respiratory illness or influenza. The only common denominator was that they had all received a vaccine for the Swine Flu, just prior to becoming symptomatic.

He said the CDC's report on this states "The Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a thorough scientific review of this issue in 2003 and concluded that people who received the 1976 swine influenza vaccine had an increased risk for developing GBS."
They also included the statement "The CDC works very hard to anticipate a potential problem during the development of each new flu vaccine."

My brother said that until then, the science world had asserted that there was no proof that influenza vaccines have any adverse side effects that could cause any permanent impairment. But the evidence concluded by the CDC made their previous assertion no longer valid in scientific reports, since proof of the opposite, was in fact, found. He reminded me that the devastating results from the dispensing of the drug Thalidomide, should have warned us that assertions of safety can never be 100% guaranteed, when it comes to medicine. We just have to weigh the benefits vs. the possible risks.

I'm glad that people are starting to see the problems with not vaccinating. I expect that history will repeat itself, as it tends to do and given that people have varying knowledge and opinions. The specific topic may change, but the general issues will come back around.

"Science needs to be heavily considered, of course, but some critical thinking is important as well."

Chi83, this sentence states that you don't understand science.

"When you violate others' rights to being healthy, your freedom ends."

Cynic, how does one define if a person is violating another person's "rights to be healthy"? Seems to me we're all guilty, as we've all been sick and around other people.

Snidley, I noticed you did not mention the non-scientific use of the word theory. Just curious if you noticed it, and why you choose to over look it, if you did notice? I generally find that those of us who want better science education and understanding, as I believe you do based on posts I have read, like to be clear about the scientific use of the word.

I don't believe vaccinations should be forced on people. What may help one person may hurt another. I am very sensitive to meds. I have a long list of things I can't take, prescribed pain meds for one. I am sitting here at 3 AM in to much pain to sleep. I tried a prescription the surgeon prescribed and I was nauseous for 2 days, then I tried Tylenol and now my stomach is so messed up I am miserable. Almost every med doctors prescribe cause me a problem, common meds that most people can take. One of my doctors wanted to give me a shot that lasted for months and my medical doctor said she was very glad I did not have it. She said if you have a problem with it, there is no way to remove it from your system.

I talked to someone a few days ago whose baby had a shot with 13 meds in it for different diseases. Knowing what I know now I would never allow that for my child.

Thanks for the rampant assumptions, Alice. I didn't realize you were with me in my science classes or know me well enough to make such a statement.

My point was that I think people should take scientific discoveries, technological advancements and what we know to be true at this point in time into consideration while continuing to think for themselves. It seems a lot of important discoveries are made by questioning the current system of belief. I firmly believe that in the future, we will find many "safe" things that we do now are actually harmful. I'm not talking about vaccines but in general terms across a broad range of products and ideas.

alice and picky, I didn't express myself very well through the course of the thread. I'll let it drop. (it's the hazard of trying to post quickly).

chi, in saying "some critical thinking is important as well.", I hope you're not suggesting that people outside a field (like parents) have any basis to do critical thinking about a technical subject they know nothing about. Because they don't. People who are ignorant (which we all are about topics we're not trained in) can only ask for advice and then weigh what advice to follow. To suggest that discounting or ignoring advice is "critical thinking" is silly.

I'm not suggesting that people automatically disregard advice from experts. I agree that it's a good step to ask for advice and weigh which advice to follow. I wish I could 100% trust in doctors and other experts, but the fact is that I don't because I have found reasons not to.

Over the course of my life I have received bad medical advice. A few years ago I was having major pain all over my body and weird blood results. I underwent all sorts of invasive and expensive procedures over several months and everything came back normal. My (former) doctor was basically telling me nothing was wrong since the tests came back negative and it must be in my head. My own research on my symptoms suggested extreme vitamin D deficiency but my doctor wouldn't test me because I lived in Florida. Seriously, that was her reason.

I finally insisted, and it came back extremely low so I took some supplements and felt 1000% better and my symptoms disappeared within a week or two and my blood results normalized. I am irritated that I spent thousands in tests when a simple blood test and a $10 supplement would have fixed it. Again I'm not suggesting patients playing Dr. Google is a replacement for real medical advice, but sometimes even the experts are wrong.

chi, I'm sorry you had to deal with a less than capable doctor. There are lots of them around. Also, sometimes diagnoses can be very difficult. Don't use that experience to draw a parallel to the topic of vaccination recommendations or public health issues.

Your unfortunate experience with one physician, with a happy ending, is a completely different topic. The dots are too far apart to connect.

I have been speaking on general terms. I'm not against vaccinations. The only connection I'm making between vaccinations and incompetent doctors is that sometimes the experts are wrong. I realize there's a big difference between a single doctor and established medical guidelines and perhaps it's not fair to make the comparison so I'll withdraw it.

I think all kids who can should be vaccinated against the big vaccines that have been around for decades. There are a few I am unsure about. Like Gardasil, which is now a standard recommendation in the US. I received it myself a few years ago and had some negative side effects that I am still dealing with today. Japan also recently removed it from their recommended vaccines due to the documented side effects, and that says something to me. I am wary of the "new" ones that don't have decades of scientific data behind them. If they are still not finding any negative correlations in another 20-30 years, then that's great.