ladydeburg wrote:
So funny thanks for posting.
Now the utter stupidity of not vaccinating your children in this country and the online anti vaccine industry is now being shown the door by the government.
"Religious objection" that will no longer be an excuse to ruin your childrens life and even kill them but to protect other children from that type of stupidity.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sorry for the long c&p but here is an immunologist with an opposing view on vaccines.
Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych has a PhD in Immunology and is author of the book, โVaccine Illusion: How Vaccination Compromises Our Natural Immunity and What We Can Do To Regain Our Health.โ Dr. Obukhanych has postdoctoral training at Harvard Medical School and Stanford University. This is an excerpt from her testimony during the California Senate Hearings on SB 277 on April 8th, 2015.
In my childhood I contracted measles despite being fully vaccinated with 2 vaccine doses. My personal experience prompted me to examine peer reviewed research on measles and other vaccines in much greater detail than what is generally being taught in medical schools and PhD programs. Based on my in depth analysis of vaccines and the protection they afford I am here to testify that families who utilize personal belief exemptions do not pose a significant threat to the public and that personal belief exemptions must be preserved. First, assuming that the Disneyland measles outbreak provoked the introduction of SB 277, the question is: would it have been prevented with SB 277 in place?
According to the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report issued by the CDC at the peak of the outbreak, only 18 out of the 131 measles cases in California were in school age children with personal belief exemptions. The vast majority of measles cases in the outbreak were unrelated to personal belief exemptions.
Please let me now explain the measles paradox as noted in epidemiological studies. I quote from the Pollen and Jacobsen 1994 archives in journal medicine. The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons. Further research determined that behind the measles paradox is a fraction of the population called low vaccine responders. Low responders are those who respond poorly to the first dose of the measles vaccine. These individuals then mount a fake immune response to subsequent revaccination and quickly return to the pool of susceptible people within 2 to 5 years despite being fully vaccinated. Re-vaccination cannot correct low responsiveness, it appears to be an immunogenetic trait. Furthermore the low responders currently outnumbers those with personal belief exemptions in California. The rate of personal belief exemptions is currently 2.54%. In California the proportion of low responders was estimated to be 4.7% based on the antibody titer analysis following the second MMR shot.
It has been documented that vaccinated persons who develop breakthrough illness are contagious. In fact, 2 major measles outbreaks in 2011 in Quebec, Canada and in New York, New York were imported by previously vaccinated individuals. Based on these findings it is apparent that SB 277 cannot prevent future outbreaks, this is because low vaccine responsiveness together with documented contagiousness during a breakthrough illness in the vaccinated results in the measles paradox which cannot be eliminated by vaccine compliance.
Second, a big concern during the outbreak of a communicable disease is how to protect the immunocompromised. Public spaces can never be rendered infection free even when vaccination compliance is high, approaching 99%. For this reason the protection of the immunocompromised is achieved by administering measles immunoglobulin or human normal immunoglobulin upon probable exposure. This process is called passive immunization. SB 277 is not needed for the sake of the immunocompromised because of the availability of the immunoglobulin.
Third, the tetanus texoid and hepatitis B vaccines are intended for diseases that are not transmissible in school settings. Neither IPV, the polio vaccine, nor acellular pertussis, the whooping cough vaccine, nor the texoid vaccines are capable of preventing transmission of the infection. They intended to prevent disease symptoms only. Attempting to eliminate personal belief exemptions to these state mandated vaccines under the pretext of pursuing public safety has no scientific validity.
Please note that SB 277 would not simply bar students from public and private schools it would also apply to homeschooled children due to Californiaโs designation of homeschools as private schools. Since children in California are required by law to receive an education the bill would in fact force any family who opposes vaccinations to submit their children to state mandated vaccines against their will. A forced medical procedure is a violation of human rights. About 100 years ago, in 1909 California passed virtually without opposition a forced sterilization law deemed at that time to be for the public good and science based. This is not the history we are proud of. This is not the history we want to repeat today. Mass media breeds intolerance for a small minority of families who choose to care for the health of their children differently from the mainstream. Such intolerance is irrational. Non-vaccinating families do not pose a unique or in most cases any threat to the public to warrant any discrimination against them. My conclusion is that SB 277 is not needed and personal belief exemptions must be preserved.
What a dreadful ad!
