Vaccines for kids shirked in eight states (PICTURES)
istockphoto
(CBS/AP) Have parents given the cold shoulder to immunizations for their kids? In eight states, more than 1 in 20 public school kindergartners fail to get all the vaccines required for attendance, according to a new Associated Press analysis. That apparent trend has health officials worried about outbreaks of diseases that once were all but eliminated.
PICTURES - Vaccines for kids: 8 states where parents say no
The analysis found that more than half of states have seen at least an uptick in the rate of exemptions in the past five years.
It's "really gotten much worse," said Mary Selecky, secretary of health for Washington state, where 6 percent of public school parents have opted out.
Reasons for skipping school shots vary. Some parents doubt that the vaccines are essential. Others fear vaccines are risky. Some find it easier to check a box opting out than getting the shots and taking care of the required paperwork. Still others are ambivalent, believing in older vaccines but questioning newer shots against, say, chickenpox.
Some parents worry about the number of shots. By the time most kids are 6, they'll have been jabbed with a needle about two dozen times - with many of those shots given in infancy. The cumulative effect of those shots hasn't been studied thoroughly, some parents say. But few serious problems have turned up despite years of vaccinations, and studies have shown no link between childhood vaccines and autism.
Overall, childhood vaccination rates remain high, at 90 percent or above for several vaccines, including those for polio, measles, hepatitis B and even chickenpox. In many states, exemptions are filed for fewer than 1 percent of kids entering school for the first time.
Health officials have not identified an exemption threshold that would likely lead to outbreaks. But as they push for 100-percent immunization, they worry when some states' exemption rates are climbing over 5 percent. The average state exemption rate has been estimated at less than half that.
Parents may think it does no harm to others if their kids skip some vaccines, but health officials say they're putting others at risk. No vaccine is totally effective. If an outbreak begins in an unvaccinated group of children, a vaccinated child may still be at some risk of getting sick.
And while it seems unlikely that diseases like polio and diphtheria could mount a comeback to the U.S., CDC immunization expert Dr. Lance Rodewald said it could happen.
For its review, the AP asked state health departments for kindergarten exemption rates for 2006-07 and 2010-11. The AP also looked at data states had previously reported to the federal government. (Most states lack data for the 2011-12 school year.)
Exemption seekers are often middle-class, college-educated whites, but there is often a mix of views and philosophies. Exemption hot spots like Sedona, Ariz., and rural northeast Washington have concentrations of both alternative medicine-preferring as well as government-fearing libertarians.
What many of exemption-seeking parents share, however, is a mental calculation that the dangers posed by vaccine-preventable diseases are less worrisome than the possible harms from vaccine. Or they just don't believe health officials, putting more stock in alternative sources - often discovered through Internet searches.
Parents say they'd like to decide which vaccinations their children get, and when. Health officials reply that vaccinations are recommended at an early age to protect children before they encounter a dangerous infection. "If you delay, you're putting a child at risk," said Gerri Yett, a nurse who manages Alaska's immunization program.
Some parent groups have pushed legislators to make exemptions easier or do away with vaccination requirements altogether. The number of states allowing philosophical exemptions grew from 15 to 20 in the last decade.
Some in public health are exasperated by the trend. As another University of Arizona researcher, Kacey Ernst, put it, "Every time we give them evidence (that vaccines are safe), they come back with a new hypothesis" for why vaccines could be dangerous."
Popular in Health
- Skin cancer self-exam: What to look for (PHOTOS)
- Controversial update to psychiatry manual, DSM-5, arrives
- Handbags may contain more germs than average toilet flush
- Flesh-eating disease victim gets bionic hands
- Doctor: Gel manicures a potential skin cancer risk
- CDC: One in five U.S. kids has mental health disorder
- Shocking study: Math skills improved by electric stimulus
- Handbags have more germs than toilet seats, study finds Play Video
The ong-oing myriad of recently vaccinated adults and children shed the diseases, which they were vaccinated against, through their mucous, bms, and saliva and into their environment - THEY are the greatest threat to those with weakened immune systems. Especially since their doctors refuse to believe they have these diseases at a later date, when they manifest all the symptoms, because they are supposedly vaccinated and "immune"; so they go into public and share their non-illnesses with everyone, including the immune-compromised.
However, that link has another player in it: common genetic disorders that contravene vaccination until the age of 7 or later.
Yes, vaccines in and of themselves do not cause autism. However, vaccinations with an interplay between genetic disorders IS known to cause autism. Some of these genetic disorders are 'one out of 100' things that we should be testing children for even though they usually (in and of themselves) have little to no effect, since in combination with vaccines they can cause some serious issues.
Could you please provide even a smidgen of credible evidence to support your assertion, including citations to peer-reviewed scientific publications? Thanks--because otherwise it will appear that you don't have any evidence to support your claim.
I also have enough evidence with seeing children in the local elementary school that I volunteer at on a regular basis, with parents with autistic children expressing how when their doctors did DNA screenings for certain genetic disorders, almost all of them had at least one and some multiple.
The evidence of vaccine damage is obvious, it's everywhere, and parents have taken note of it, and are stepping forward to protect their children from harm. The authorities will eventually get over their lust for profits and power, and take a more appropriate stance on this issue. Vaccine damage has taken a huge toll on this generation, far greater than the toll of any of the vaccine-preventable diseases would have!
Bronwen, can you provide any evidence that the incidence of autism spectrum disorders increased substantially after 1991?
OF course, it is clear that the PREVALENCE of ASD has increased since 1991, in part because the Autism Diagnostic Interview was published then; that was the first generally recognized tool for diagnosing autism. In 1992, the American Psychiatric Association released the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV), which refined diagnostic criteria for autistic disorder and made autism a spectrum disorder; in essence, it became possible for someone to be very autistic or mildly autistic.
Prevalence vs. incidence: antivaxxers don't seem to be able to understand these crucial terms. Pity, that.
I wanted to take a minute to tell you how very sorry I am that your children, and subsequently you, continue to suffer at the hands of this collaborative evil that is the CDC/FDA/Pharma. I applaud what had to be an EXTREME effort to remain calm as you responded to the many tail-chasing ramblings of W&N. My thoughts are with you & your family.
@ W&N:
"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength." Eric Hoffer (1902-1983)
"A belief which leaves no place for doubt is not a belief; it is a superstition." Jose Bergamin (1895-1983)
The obvious falsehoods in your assertions are clearly demonstrated below.
Is this why you started a new thread? To distance your assertions from the facts?
Or do you not understand what "indemnifies" means?
Or that congress--not HHS--passes laws?
Or that the Maryland courts (that ruled all the vaccines cause autism arguments are junk science) are not part of HHS?
No surprise, the vaccine critics still can't get the basic facts correct.
W&N
These children had already had other vaccinations, prior to the ones in question, which sent them down the slippery slope. The stage was already set for the train wreck that was to follow.
David Amaral, the research director of the UC Davis MIND Institute, today published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences work that demonstrates that the growth of the brains of children who regress into ASD is dysregulated, and the brains of such children are already enlarged early in infancy. Eric Courchesne of UC San Diego published last month in the Journal of the American Medical Association that the early post-natal brain overgrowth that is commonly observed in ASD is due to prenatal proliferation of cortical neurons near the beginning of the second trimester of prenatal development, because the near-doubling of cortical neurons in the brains of subjects with ASD cannot be explained by any post-natal process.
So you didn't look then before responding?
As bpatient points out, one line of relevant data is that decades of data showing that autism starts during early embryonic development. Try finding these studies on any of the anti-vacc sites...
W&N
My daughter suffered a severe neurologic event after receiving her 4-month shots which resulted in a trip to the hospital; this began her decline and symptoms (worsening with each new series of shots) which resulted in her diagnosis at 2 -- "severe autism."
My daughter shrieked for hours on end, had staring fits, did not respond to her name, did not sleep, produced copious and putrid diarrhea upward of 8 times daily, suffered a bloody on-going untreatable diaper rash, drooled so much she required hourly shirt changes and bibs every 20 minutes, became hypotonic, could not tolerate being touched or held unexpectedly, could not tolerate many food textures, refused to consume adequate amounts of food, banged her head for up to two hours at a time, did not speak or point, and much more. Her records demonstrate hippocampal sclerosis, autoimmunity to her own myelin, frontal lobe epilepsy, temporal lobe epilepsy, mitochondrial dysfunction, hypotonia, convergence disorder, diplopia, liver dysfunction, kidney dysfunction, allergy to numerous foods and vaccine ingredients, brain hypoperfusion in some areas and hyperperfusion in others, and more.
My daughter's genetics are entirely unremarkable (according to a well-known geneticist). My daughter suffers from damage pursuant to a series of environmental insults at the toxic tip of PhRMA's many needles.
Technically speaking, she does not have "Autism," she has health issues as a result vaccine injury. Maybe the "vaccine court" does not recognize "Autism," but it certainly does compensate children who manifest symptoms as a result of vaccine injury, whose symptoms would result in a diagnosis of "Autism," based on the DSM - at least the lucky few who have managed to be heard...
It is nine years and $1.2M (good-bye retirement, college funds, vacations, mortgage-free home, credit lines, and four estates) since my daughter's diagnosis and we still have not had our day in "court."
After my second child (unrelated to my first), at her six month shots, stopped breathing while still in the pediatrician's office, spent five hours at the hospital, and checked out with the diagnosis' "severe asthma" and "eczema," and 6 heavy-duty "lifelong" drugs, I concluded vaccination is likely more risky than many of the diseases. Funny, we ended up contracting most of the diseases for which shots are made available (apparently from recently vaccinated classmates) - the fully vaccinated child contracted them and suffered two- to three-times longer from them than the partially vaccinated child or the entirely vaccine-free child...Makes me think there was little benefit to sacrificing my children on the alter of "herd immunity" and paying the price of admission to this club - one child's childhood and independent adulthood and another child's ability to breath...
If there was a shred of merit to your assertions, you would have a huge line of major law-firms begging to take your case to court.
But you don't, and you can't seem to follow the basic facts of the vaccine court cases or the rules under which it operates, most people will remain unconvinced by your assertions. The link is provided below...
Of course most readers will have noticed that you didn't actually address any of the points I made previously.
Just more examples why the vaccine critics are marginalized to posting on the Net.
W&N
So, if I don't like their decision, I am still hamstrung because the Second Restatement of Torts provides this lovely gem, "if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings" [the vaccine manufacturer is not liable for a vaccine-related injury or death from a recommended vaccine]. In plain English, if the manufacturer purposely included anthrax as part of his formulation - then I cannot sue him if the anthrax kills my child. Further, the manufacturer has no responsibility to assure I am fully informed of the known risks associated with use of their product - they only have to provide such information to the doctors, who provide a simple tear-sheet to patients which is not detailed and does not provide full disclosure; sorry Mrs. Doe, you have no right to know that shot contains live anthrax and will likely kill your child, but here is a list of side effects and what to do when each happens....
It appears, W&N that you don't quite understand the VICP and how it operates. Further, I have addressed your assertions - the VICP regularly pays children with "Autism," because many of the cases compensated have this diagnosis - as I deftly demonstrated, this diagnosis is not a medical diagnosis, rather psychological, based upon symptoms - these symptoms result from medical injuries like encephalopathy and seizure disorder, which is, in fact compensated regularly by the VICP (FYI, 83 cases, compensated by VICP, have the diagnosis of Autism). Further, my case is pending (and has been) in the VICP for 9 years, so my account is far from specious; whereas your attacks scream shill.
Most readers will recognize your pathetic attempts to marginalize parents of vaccine-injured children as small, mean-spirited, and lacking in substance. As is your ability to research, as there has NEVER been any safety research performed on administering multiple vaccines per visit, according to the US vaccine schedule (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/child/0-6yrs-schedule-pr.pdf - be sure to read the "notes"). And the testing which has been performed on each vaccine never evaluates outcomes past 1 month post-vaccine and is performed and reported by the manufacturer rather than an independent body!
I find it highly entertaining that your ilk accuses people whose children suffered VACCINE-injuries as being anti-vaccine...It stands to reason that we must have vaccinated our children.
Why don't you post a single link to research which demonstrates our vaccine schedule is safe? And I don't mean a link to research which can neither prove or disprove a link to Autism - because it doesn't prove or disprove anything (especially not safety)...Which, honestly IS junk science.
The Department of Health and Human Services makes all the maneuvering here look like child's play, they have the big game -- the Dept of Health and Human Services recommends the vaccine schedule, purchases the vaccines, indemnifies the manufacturers of vaccines and administers the "court" which assigns blame, and compensates the victims of its program (as infrequently as possible) - if this is not the fox watching the henhouse, I don't know what is.
There is lots of data on this in Pubmed and from the Omnibus hearings.
W&N
Since other countries, that don't have the US problem with ridiculous lawsuits, also don't provide legal protection to vaccine manufacturers, the logical conclusion is that the problem is with meritless lawsuits, not with vaccines.
W&N
And you have your inference incorrect: lawsuits do not cause negative vaccine effects - negative vaccine effects cause lawsuits. Other coutries have signbificantly different lists of which vaccines they use, how they are prepared, the ages when they are administered, and a number of other factors.
The bottom line is that vaccines are VERY SAFE, the chance of negative effects is tiny, and the chance of negative effects from contracting many of the diseases (and the potential lethality) makes vaccines something that should be part of a sensible health program - buit it does NOT mean we should inject a 4 month old with multiple diseases they will never encounter, and then hit them again at 6 months. We should allow revisded schedules and vaccine lists because that is a BETTER answer.
But the current process of injecting infants multiple times with vaccines some of which makes no sense - makes no sense. There Has not been a single case of polio in the United Staes in 24 years - except for the cases CAUSED BY THE VACCINE. They subsequently changed the vaccine, but why take the risk?
The biggest argument most anti-vaccine parents have is that the number of vaccines, the combination of vaccines, and the ages at which the vaccines are "recommended" are nonsensical. We should be able to get the individual vaccines, or in certain combinations, on a revised schedule that allows infantrs to develop their immune systems before we try to stimuluate those systems to produce antibodies against diseases they will never encounter.
My personal belief on the autism issue is that as GingerTaylor so accurately pointed out, autism appears to be a genetic vulnerability that is "triggered" environmentally, and that vaccines (or more specifically, the infant body's reaction to being invaded that way) is one potential trigger. The probability is extremely low, but the repercussions are enormous so it only makes sense from a risk management standpoint to take fewer vaccinations over a longer period of time and watch for side effects.
After all, some vaccines (like chicken pox) should not be given at all.
The fact is that there have been recent, non-vaccine, polio cases in the US. Just like there are good reasons to vaccinate against chickenpox.
One of the reasons the vaccine critics are marginalized to posting on the Net is they have great difficulties getting the basic facts correct.
W&N
And your statement that there are "good reasons to vaccinate against chicken pox" - no, there aren't. Chicken pox vaccine was only developed at the insistence of industry to keep PARENTS from taking time off of work to care for sick children. Chicken pox is a relatively mild disease - in children. Children that have it pass on immunities to their children and are immune to contracting the disease as an adult. ADULT chicken pox can be fatal. So we don't need to vaccinate children - we need to vaccinate adults that have never had the disease or been vaccinated.
And of course, you neglect to mention that even people that have been vaccinated can contract the diseases, so vaccination is only a safety measure not a 100% prevention.
The bottom line in my post, however, remains the same. Some vaccines are necessary. Some aren't. Some are fore things we encounter in ordinary life in the US (like tetanus). Some aren't (like polio). But making your infant sick by assaulting their immature immune system with diseases they aren't ready to deal with, in mass quantities, is a risk - and a greater risk that many of the diseases. So vaccination should be done, but on a MUCH delayed and revised schedule, and not all the current list of diseases are necessary to vaccinate against in a child.
I wonder shy Sharyl Attkisson didn't write this article?