How U.S. Supreme Court Just Made It Tougher to Challenge California Vaccine Law

Protesters demonstrated at the state Capitol in June against Senate Bill 277, which requires nearly all California schoolchildren to be vaccinated. (John Myers/KQED)

The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear a challenge to a requirement in New York state that all children be vaccinated, unless they have a religious exemption, before they can attend public school. The justices on Monday let stand lower court rulings that the policy does not violate the constitution.

While the particulars of the New York vaccine mandate is somewhat different than in California, this decision still matters here.  A new law passed in June requires virtually all California schoolchildren to be vaccinated against a range of diseases in order to attend school.

The high court’s move means that potential challenges to the California law are “not likely to succeed,” Prof. Dorit Reiss, a vaccine law expert at UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, told KQED.

During the rancorous debate over the bill, SB277, one of the arguments I heard from those opposing it was that the Supreme Court’s major cases on childhood vaccination were decades old — or more — and that the world had changed dramatically since the last major rulings.

Yes, this is the health blog, but bear with me while we take a look at two key cases.

First, in 1905, the Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts essentially ruled that the states could enforce mandatory vaccination laws.

Reiss noted that Jacobson found “states have extensive leeway to require vaccination.”

California never had a religious exemption written into the law. Instead the state had only a “personal belief exemption,” now abolished by SB277. Only those children with a medical exemption may attend school without being vaccinated.

And that brings us to the second key case.

In 1944, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Prince v. Massachusetts. The case was not explicitly about vaccines — a Jehovah’s Witness was charged with violating child labor law by having her child sell religious material. Rather, the case is seen as one that spells out limits on parental rights. Parents do not have absolute authority over their children, and that can include decisions about vaccination. From the decision:

 “The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death.”

“You don’t get out of a general law because you have a religious exemption,” Reiss told me. She used taxes as an example. You may have a religious objection, but you still must pay. Because SB277 is “not aimed at a particular religion,” one cannot apply a religious exemption.

Returning to the challenge to the New York law, Reiss said that by declining an opportunity to consider it, the Supreme Court is not reaffirming these older decisions. But it is also declining an opportunity to reconsider those rulings.

It may be that the petition was denied “because there are not four justices on the Supreme Court who think Jacobson is such bad law that it should be overturned,” Reiss wrote on Skeptical Raptor.

Here in California the new vaccine law appears to raise a different constitutional question — all California children have a constitutional right to an education. Under SB277, children who are not vaccinated cannot attend school.

Is the constitutional right to an education violated by SB277?

Reiss said she believes a constitutional challenge on these grounds would be “incorrect.” She pointed to a series of famous cases in California, Serrano v. Priest, which found inequity in school financing. Schools were found to be “discriminating on wealth,” Reiss said.

But requiring schoolchildren to be vaccinated is not a violation under Serrano v. Priest, Reiss said, because choosing not to vaccinate is a behavior and not a fact of one’s existence, such as wealth or race. “It is perfectly legitimate for the state to regulate behavior, which is what SB277 does,” Reiss said.

The new law goes into effect next July 1.

Oct. 8, 2015: this post has been updated to clarify that New York state permits a religious exemption from its vaccine mandate.

  • Kim Ladin

    This is a relief to those of us who think it’s important to protect our most vulnerable from dangerous diseases. Kudos to the Supreme Court!

    • Marcos Acevedo

      You can protect you kids as you see fit but leave mine the hell alone!

      • Mary

        That’s not how vaccination and herd immunity work. One family choosing not to vaccinate their children not only affects them, but could affect everyone they come into contact with.

        • Marcos Acevedo

          yeah that would make sense if vaccine were 100% effective, but they are not. Your child can still aquire, and spread a disease that they have be vaccinated against.

          • cable1977

            That highly depends on which disease you are talking about. Some small percentage of children could still acquire and spread a disease, but that pales in comparison to the ability of an unvaccinated individual to acquire and spread a disease.

          • Jeri

            did you actually read your contradiction? vax either work or they don’t. get your vax and feel safe. let the rest of us stupid people die off then you will be even safer.

          • cable1977

            No, it is incorrect to state that vaccines either work or they don’t work. Vaccines have the ability to induce a range of immune responses and protection can then vary depending upon the how strong that is in an individual. Some people mount stronger responses than others. In addition, subsequent infection will also depend on the amount of pathogen that an individual contacts.

            So, immune responses to vaccines and the risks of subsequent infection are quite a bit more complex than the simplistic thinking that anti-vaxxers like yourself want to engage in.

            In addition, there is no law that requires you or your child to be vaccinated. You have every right to refuse vaccination.

          • Jeri

            Yes, it is true. And an acquired disease that is not of an attenuated virus has a much stronger and longer-lasting resistance.

            Your ad hominem attack proves you are threatened. You have no idea what my position is in life or on this issue. You make illogical assumptions. Anti-vax? Ouch.. that really marginalizes me like a good Saul Alinsky pupil would hope.

            Let me make something clear for any psuedo wordsmith liberals that may be reading. Your precious copybook headings don’t fool the educated and aware. Calling someone anti- versus pro-? It’s funny how one could be PRO-abortion (anti-life) but then want to prosecute someone on vaccines for being PRO CHOICE. If you think I have the right to kill a being in the womb… then by your logic I sure have the right to decide what they get poked with outside of it. Or does daddy gov take over after the birth? I can decide before, but not after I go through the process of actually birthing. Oh wait, it’s to protect your flock, er um, herd…

            I keep my kids out of school, so your herd is quite safe. Stop making me pay school taxes for YOUR choice. But you can’t can you? You can’t even have the discussion to allow you to pay for you own way and not live off of my hard work. You want to just attack the person instead of own the repercussions of YOUR choice.

            You’re right there is no law but I don’t see you pro- people fighting to make sure I don’t have to pay for your herd. You need all of us stupid anti-vaxxers to pay for your way of life. That’s the difference. We don’t want anything from you except left alone.

            P.S. if you want to reference yourselves as a herd… may I suggest it’s highly degrading. To cattle.

          • Justthefacts

            There was no “ad hominem attack”. You have posted nothing but anti-vaxx posts so that is what you are. Own it. No anti-vaxxer has ever come up with a better term. You are against vaccinations. That is what you are.

            Please keep your imagination to your vaccine theories.

          • Jeri

            I have a better term. Pro-choice. I own it. And you don’t define more nor shall you ever. The more you try, the more it proves you have to make it fit your narrative or marginalization. I’d like to see you try that with a group like transgenders or homosexuals. Force a label on them and tell them to own it.

            I am for and would fight for the right for you to vaccinate yourself or not. I am for choice. You know nothing of what I believe save for the slice you read here today. Do you put anyone who doesn’t align with you in a big ole box? How progressive.

          • Justthefacts

            The problem with that is that it is not accurate and doesn’t include all the other anti-vaxxers. Many anti-vaxxers are not “pro choice” at all. They argue to cease vaccination entirely. There is nothing pro choice about that. You are against vaccines and all of you together are common in the anti-vaxx moverment.. I’m sorry you are so disappointing with your actual political position.

          • Jeri

            You were off to such a great start. Then you lumped me back in again. Even after you said it doesn’t include all the other people who oppose vax. I’m sorry but you just proved that you can only handle two camps. Diversity scares you. For or against. I am neither.

            I am for being free of your agenda. I’m for you being free from my agenda. The only way to do that is choice. I am pro-choice. I do not care that it throws off your typical talking points about vax.

            You could have just said, if you are choice then I have no issue with you. So either you want to force me to do what you want or you cannot understand diversity. Which?

          • Justthefacts

            I think you are confused. I support diversity in all its forms and the freedom to have opinions on social issues. I do not support anyone making up their own science. i do not consider your opinion on vaccine valid in an way shape of form, I have no respect for you or your opinion in any way and I fully support ridicule and any other legal method to destroy and dissipate your dangerous activities. I do not think you desire a place at the table. Does that clear it up for you?

            Diversity doesn’t scares me. I just think you are not entitled to it. Yes, I support SB277 and feel you should be forced to get your vaccinations or be home schooled under penalty of law. Is that clear enough for you?

          • Jeri

            I don’t think you understand SB277 and the personal exemption that has to be filed. H3ll, I don’t even know if I fully do. Honestly I don’t care about SB277. I don’t live in that cesspool.

            You will never destroy anything. Opposition isn’t going away. The only ridicule you have done is to yourself. I actually want you to say things like this. It shines a light and destroys the cause of your ilk. Progressives always lose because of one thing… they can’t keep their mouths shut. Your vitriol destroys your cause. And you let stupid people like me, do it to you. I don’t need a place at your table. I built my own and it’s been supporting me completely for decades.

            You and your neophytes don’t force me to home school. I already do it. And I make sure my taxes are recovered. Legally. Because it’s “settled law”. My huge family of children will all understand freedom. They will inherit my land, my wealth, my knowledge. They will spread it. Like a virus. (like that?) You will be bred out. Does that clear it up for you? No soup for you. NEXT!

          • Justthefacts

            California just dropped the exemption and the referendum failed to gather signatures. Who do you think is winning right now? Do you think your numbers will ever rise above 3%? Do you understand exactly how fringe you ideas actually are? You don’t even have a real Disqus account, Noob. To call you clueless insults clueless people.

          • Jeri

            I don’t think it did, it changed that you need to file and you did not before. There is also some 7th grade items in the bill that may change at that point. I said clearly that I don’t know it. I said clearly I don’t care either. Let them battle it out. Let them home school. Better for them anyway than roaming the halls with the miscreant offspring.

            3% huh? Dismiss it, I don’t care : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjZPoPaOk0s

            Let me reiterate about SB277… I don’t know it and I don’t care simply because I have enough to do in my state. I think it’s wrong but up to the people of that state to fight it.

            I don’t have a disgust account. I still get to make that choice. You’re right. Omg, I don’t have the imprimatur! (look that up)

          • Justthefacts

            It is abundantly clear that you don’t care.

          • VikingAPRNCNP

            You as an adult have every right to make choices about vaccination.

            Society at large has an interest in protecting children. As a parent you don’t have a right to neglect your children or their medical needs.

            The supreme court has repeatedly upheld vaccination laws.

            Your viewpoint at its core is the height of selfishness. We all have an obligation to take steps to prevent damage to the commons.

          • cable1977

            “Yes, it is true. And an acquired disease that is not of an attenuated virus has a much stronger and longer-lasting resistance.”

            No it isn’t and I explained why above. You simply repeating your initial claims without actually following it up with any reasoning doesn’t make it anymore correct. The length of resistance depends greatly upon the vaccine, but the whole point of using an attenuated virus is to avoid the effects of the disease in the first place.

            “Your ad hominem attack proves you are threatened. You have no idea what my position is in life or on this issue. ”

            I didn’t make an ad hominem attack, certainly not one that was a logical fallacy. It’s fallacious to say that you are wrong because you’re an idiot, but it’s not fallacious to say you’re an idiot because you’re wrong. I engaged in the former, not the latter. Looking at the rest of your rant, it’s quite clear that one can make certain reasonable estimates of your belief structure and opinions.

            “It’s funny how one could be PRO-abortion (anti-life) but then want to prosecute someone on vaccines for being PRO CHOICE.”

            Except no one is being prosecuted for anything. It’s a nice strawman though. Keep away from open flames though or you may set the internet ablaze.

            “Stop making me pay school taxes for YOUR choice.”

            Ah yes, the good ol’ selfish libertarian philosophy. Riddled with more holes than a block of swiss cheese on a firing range. But that’s fair enough. I will gladly allow you not not pay any taxes whatsoever for your choice not to vaccinate, provided that you completely and utterly remove yourself from society at large.

            P.S. Thanks for reminding me why conservatives can never manage to have any successful satire. You just aren’t funny.

          • VikingAPRNCNP

            Couple thoughts.
            1. We all pay taxes for the betterment of our local communities. (Schools, parks, libraries, police and fire departments.)

            2. Herd immuniry clearly has benefitted all of us. Measles 4 million case per year with around 400 deaths in 1963. Maybe 400 cases this year with 1 death. (Worldwide case fatality of about 160000 cases.)

            3. Polio cases down by well over 99% since 1957. Roughly 24 cases WORLD WIDE this year. Polio is on track for elimination within the next 3 to 5 years.

            4. Smallpox eliminated circa 1977 from the wild.

            All of these accomplishments have been achieved through aggressive public health efforts for primary prevention.

            You and your children are still at risk from measles and other diseases that are preventable through vaccinations. We live in a highly mobile world. Vaccination prevents the import and export of diseases to other population groups.

          • BigBuccoFan

            What is trying to say is that if you receive the vaccine in it doesn’t work, you can only spread it to unvaccinated people or other people that are vaccinated unsuccessfully which should be a very small percentage.

            In other words, if your vaccine doesn’t take, your ability to spread it will be limited because most everyone else’s vaccine will take in a school setting. That’s herd immunity.

            And what’s not being mentioned is that if a vaccine doesn’t fully take, it may offer some partial immunity. You may get the disease, but not get the blindness associated with measles. Sounds like a win in my book, if it’s my child. But that’s just me.

          • dimensio

            In fact, that vaccines are not 100% effective is itself good cause to vaccinate any and all persons who have no legitimate medical reason not to be vaccinated.

          • Garth

            Actually, point in fact, the argument still works.

            You are arguing a spectrum of effectiveness, which doesn’t argue against a mitigation of risk premise. Just like my first amendment doesn’t let me say “Fire” in a crowded building. Could I argue that 100% of the time me yelling “Fire” doesn’t actually cause an injury? Therefor, I should be allowed to do it until I hurt someone? That seems like a poor application of your fundamental position. I hope this elucidates things for you.

          • Jeri

            You actually do have the right to say fire in a crowded building. You are confusing a right with an ordinance or a “law” violating your right. If it is a right… it cannot be abridged. If it could, it would not be a right. A supreme court does not change a law or right or create any. President does not amend the bill of rights. Then they would not be rights would they? The supreme court has never had the ability granted to it to change law.

            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

            “make no law”… tough to understand isn’t it? You could never make a law stopping you from saying ‘fire’. You should however have to deal with the consequences of the private building owner or the people in said crowd.

          • Justthefacts

            I guess it’s a shame that you are not a supreme court justice. I don’t think they care about your opinion on the law.

          • Jeri

            I didn’t say they cared. Is there a point? It’s too bad I’m a human being that does not care about their opinion on the law. Will not take a vax or give one to my kids. Ever.

            Are we all happy now that we cleared up the apathy?

          • Justthefacts

            Wasn’t it a lot simpler just to say that instead writing a moot legal brief that is useless other than to help yourself justify your position? Legally, you are officially wrong on the law, it’s settled law, and it’s constitutional to force vaccination. You are free to do what you want within the law.

          • Jeri

            Prove that. Where do you see that ever in history? Show me one case that forced people to get a vax. Show me one that forced it. I know the cases. Show me the one that made it constitutional to force vaccinations. Your words, not mine. Please please just stop. I’m starting to feel badly for you.

          • Justthefacts

            I didn’t know you were so uninformed:
            .
            Abeel vs Clark, California 1890.
            Jacobson vs Massachusetts, 1905.
            Phillips vs City of New York (2015)
            .
            The Phillips case was refused a hearing by the supreme court a month ago. It is settled law.
            .
            During the Philadelphia measles outbreak of 1991, measles vaccinations were court ordered.
            http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/02/19/386040745/why-a-court-once-ordered-kids-vaccinated-against-their-parents-will

            Anything else you need to know?

          • Jeri

            None of them force vax. The imposed penalties or denied access. I can’t believe you did not know that is exactly what I was hoping you would do.

            If law is ever “settled” how would it ever change? Why would these laws every come about? Wouldn’t the first one Settle it? Or is it only settled in certain states? I don’t live in Philly, so was I in trouble in 1991? What if it changes or gets recalled? It is then re-settled?

            No law ever forced vax. Ever. It’s the same as the ACA. It is not forced.
            A forced vax law is: you come to my house and inject me or take me away. (an arrest warrant, whatever makes your feel happy and understand hyperbole) Show me where I get arrested. Show me were force is.

            The philly scare that you mentioned was a target of a religious group and the city solicitor did not back the judge. Once again you are confusing a court ruling with law. If that is law, let me know because I can dig up some “Blue” laws that say what you can and can’t do on Sunday. I bet you don’t obey them. but this is different right? Logic only works one way.

            Anything else you want to know?

          • Justthefacts

            Nope, I know you are clearly an idiot. You asked for one “Case”, not one “law”. The judge in Philadelphia ordered vaccinations and the higher courts upheld it. Those were “FORCED VACCINATIONS”.

            “”Even the American Civil Liberties Union, which was perfectly willing to represent an unpopular cause, declined to take the case, because they felt that it was not [the parents’] right to martyr their children to their beliefs,”

            It is settled law. Forced vaccinations are constitutional any time such a law may be passed. You live in a bubble.

          • Jeri

            oh… but you apparently don’t actually know the story. you do internet poops.

            It was never enforced and the ACLU did take it up. I can give you a ton of illegal court orders that were issued. They are not law.

            Here is an internet poop for you…

            “Until now, the A.C.L.U. had declined to represent the church on the ground that there was greater need to protect children’s lives by immunization than to protect the constitutional right of their families to exercise religious beliefs. But Mr. Presser said the constitutional issues raised by the ruling were now “too enormous” to ignore.”

            You know… clearly.

            I cannot express to you enough that case law is not law. You are not capable of understanding. Some bs in another city or state does not bind me in my state or sovereign citizenry. And it wouldn’t even here in this state. Bring that needle.

          • Justthefacts

            LAW- DEFINITION – Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior. Laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or by JUDGES THROUGH BINDING PRECEDENT, normally in common law jurisdictions.
            .
            Court orders ARE LAW. ( and you asked for a “Case” not a “LAW”)
            .
            Two appeals courts on Friday upheld court-ordered measles vaccinations
            for five children whose parents belong to a church that shuns medical
            care, after another child from the church died of measles. After Cirillo’s decision, the families immediately appealed to the state
            Supreme Court, which also refused to block the vaccination order.
            http://articles.latimes.com/1991-03-09/news/mn-2208_1_court-order
            .
            FIVE children were FORCED BY LAW to be vaccinated by COURT ORDER. That court order was upheld by two appeals courts. Upholding court orders are LEGAL PRECEDENCE. You are an IDIOT..

          • Jeri

            Can laws change? Can orders be illegal? (think about that) If they change, and they have, including the order you are referring to… which is the precedent? the last one? Well then why didn’t the previous precedent stop the current precedent? Hmmm… I think that what you haven’t realized is, with this illegal power… what happens when someone like me sneaks into office and then uses the power you created to force you to do things you don’t want? Fortunately for you this country has gone to h3ll so it doesn’t matter.

            You are correct I did ask for a case and that was due to multitasking which is my fault. I did in fact mean law. At least I can admit my mistakes. You know, like you accusing me of parading my child like a war trophy?

            I can give you precedent that you do not have to register your vehicle or have a driver’s license. Will you stop doing those? I can give you precedent for things in both direction. I’ll say it again. Bring the needle. We’ll talk about law some more.

            You win. I don’t have the energy you do for this charade. I yield to your greatness.

          • BigBuccoFan

            If the child is vaccinated but the vaccine doesn’t take, he can’t spread it to children who had a vaccine that did take. He can only spread it to the 0.5% or so where the vaccine didn’t take.

            This is most important in a child like mine with cystic fibrosis, who can die from pneumonia sociated with measles, whooping cough, or chicken pox. Yes chicken pox. He is vaccinated, but God forbid his vaccine doesn’t work, it would be nice to think that most of the children in the school are incapable of carrying these diseases. It’s not a perfect world. But my little fellow is only seven and has a right to an education too. We live in West Virginia where there are mandatory vaccination laws. People get used to it. No one complains for the most part except out-of-staters. And don’t tell me I’m an educated about Autism. I have an MD from University of Pittsburgh and my child suffers from Autism also.

          • Justthefacts

            Now that’s true! Do you know what causes children to “acquire, and spread a disease” even more?
            Being unvaccinated!!

        • Jeri

          There is no such thing as herd immunity. It was a straw man argument created when pro vax interests could not refute valid opposing arguments. It’s such a cognitive dissonance rivaled only by the vile ad hominem attacks launched at those that would support individual liberty. God-given rights or evolutionary survival of the fittest… take your pick… I’ll argue either context… you cannot win the argument. Funny that most people would support killing children (abortion) as a choice, but then try to stop a parents choice to protect their child. The simple fact that you cannot sue a vax company shows the bias. It’s that kind of logic that stops people at looking at what happens when vax like measles come into the “herd”. Measles increased, not decreased.

          • BigBuccoFan

            Do you have any idea why you can’t see a vaccination company? Because NO tetanus vaccine was being made. Not a childhood preventable illness vaccine but tetanus vaccine . Due to liability concerns. Nobody would make it because of false victories based on pseudoscience from juries that didn’t understand the science. Said the man with the MD from University of Pittsburgh. Right around the year 2000, I believe it was, you could not get a tetanus vaccine if you stepped on a rusty nail. So at least get your facts straight. It had nothing to do with childhood preventable illnesses.

          • BigBuccoFan

            If the child is vaccinated but the vaccine doesn’t take, he can’t spread it to children who had a vaccine that did take. He can only spread it to the 0.5% or so where the vaccine didn’t take. So you want to write that he can spread the disease, but too many fewer people. That’s a good thing.

            This is most important in a child like mine with cystic fibrosis, who can die from pneumonia adsociated with measles, whooping cough, or chicken pox. Yes chicken pox. He is vaccinated, but God forbid his vaccine doesn’t work, it would be nice to think that most of the children in the school are incapable of carrying these diseases. It’s not a perfect world. But my little fellow is only seven and has a right to an education too. We live in West Virginia where there are mandatory vaccination laws. People get used to it. No one complains for the most part except out-of-staters. And don’t tell me I’m an educated about Autism. I have an MD from University of Pittsburgh and my child suffers from Autism also.

          • Jeri

            Um, you have no idea how diseases work at all. A disease has no idea how you got infected. Vax or natural. And a naturally acquired disease builds more anti-bodies. You think an “md” lends validity to something? You seem emotional and not being logical in your arguments. I have a child with Autism though I am not sure at all why you brought that into it, I did not. I guess that lends some expertise? I also work in Pittsburgh. Does that help me too? I’m in the industry. An I know there was ONLY one company that would insure WV on the exchanges and they did so knowing it would be a loss just to get the numbers. Do I need to connect the dots more than that?

            Your other posts make no sense at all, you don’t get tetanus from a rusty nail, you never did, so i don’t think you have an md. If you do, that’s even worse. “So get your facts straight.”

            And to say nobody would take the risk of making a vaccine if they could get sued… you just proved my point. Vax are not safe at all. They are full of toxins. If you want to talk about the merits of the attenuated viruses, you and I might find some common ground. Get the preservatives and toxins out first, then make sure the companies have to stand by their products.

            I already addressed herd immunity and the side effects of vax published by Merck… not me. Go read the vax inserts that are online that the doctor’s offices do not give you unless you ask.

          • Justthefacts

            I don’t think it’s possible for you to have conveyed more ignorance and bad ideas in one post.

          • jeri

            Who brought autism into this? Was that the next line on the talking points? You’d have to wait until I actually said vax cause autism. I didn’t. Ever. Wow, those memes really working out for you.

          • Justthefacts

            You brought autism into this. You said you have a child with autism. Anti-vaxxers always parade damaged children around like war trophies. It is sick practice every time I see it but it is nice to understand clearly why you are also so damaged.

          • Jeri

            No i didn’t. Let me make that clear it’s not my opinion that I did not bring it up. It’s a fact that I did not bring it up. I was actually commenting on the supporter that did. The pro-vax crowd has to bring it up so they can try to ridicule people.

            his words to which I was replying “And don’t tell me I’m an educated [sic] about Autism. I have an MD from University of Pittsburgh and my child suffers from Autism also.” Your camp brought it up.

            I don’t parade my child around for any political cause. Are you big enough to admit that you were wrong and apologize? I agree, people that parade their children for agenda are sick and there certainly are some. I’m not one, so your accusation is equally as vile. It shows how conditioned you’ve become.

          • Justthefacts

            “Autism” is right there in your post. I responded to it. You had a rant fit over it. What is there for me to apologize for?

          • Justthefacts

            Herd immunity was first described in 1923, and first recognized as a naturally occurring phenomenon in the 1930s when A. W. Hedrich published research on the epidemiology of measles.
            .
            So it was in 1923 that is was “created when pro vax interests could not refute valid opposing arguments.”?
            Where you around for that?

          • Jeri

            Were you around for it? You only cited a book. Does the logic work both ways? How about I show you the fight was happening back then using a document you would use and I would not?

            The Pennsylvania Journal of medicine. Page 492. Talking about the late 1800s and early 1900s and the rebellion against vaccinations. Particularly to the American red cross in Poland. “Antivaccinationist in Poland”

            Are you done thinking I’m uneducated yet? Doubt it. Doesn’t fit your narrative.

          • Justthefacts

            I didn’t make a claim, YOU DID. Now is the time when you justify your claim that “herd immunity was a straw man argument created when pro vax interests could not refute valid opposing arguments” Now is where you explain how this happened in 1923.
            .
            If you acknowledge that was all crap, then just reply with another unrelated rant.

          • Jeri

            Did you think you disarmed me by stating the obvious? Is that an attempt to get me to not use the argument you can’t get around?

            What is wrong with you? Yes I did. I did. Do you get that? I did. You and only you assumed a time frame. And you gave a time frame that was supposed to apparently point out an anachronism in my logic. I demonstrated the opposition to vaccines during the time frame that you said herd immunity came into play. So I made the exact same claim. In the time frame that you put forth. Herd immunity and vax are a farce. And they have been. What makes you think my arguments are bound to the years 20xx?

            So… I did, yes I did claim that it is a straw man argument. You did say it was in the 1920s. I did agree and I did show you the opposition existed to create said straw man in the time frame that you did state. You seriously are grasping at straws. Pun intended.

            Even your own vacc supporting peeps are like “dude, just shut up, you make us look worse”.

          • Mike Stevens

            “Even your own vacc supporting peeps are like “dude, just shut up, you make us look worse”.”
            Well I’m saying “Good job, keep it going.”

            Justthe facts has pointed out that the concept of herd immunity dates way back, to when people figured out that having a large proportion of folk who were incapable of carrying infection helped reduce the spread of it through the community. It matters not whether the resistance to infection was naturally acquired or not; in fact the herd immunity epidemiology was first worked out for natural infections, not for vaccines.

            All he asked you to do was back up your claim that Herd Immunity was somehow created by “provax interests”.

            I see you are unable to comply with what is a very reasonable request to verify a claim that you made.

            http://op12no2.me/stuff/rough.pdf

          • Justthefacts

            Just because anti-vaxxers have been around forever, that does not mean that heard immunity is a straw man. PROVE IT!! What is your evidence dated back to 1923 that is was created as a strawman? Cite one writing from that era that supports your argument.

            Just because it’s your opinion, doesn’t make it true.

          • bpatient

            “There is no such thing as herd immunity.”

            That sentiment is prominent among anti-science, anti-vaccine campaigners who cannot understand what has been understood for over one hundred years. Here’s a good recent example of how this works: Taksler GB, Rothberg MB, Cutler DM. Association of Influenza Vaccination Coverage in Younger Adults With Influenza-Related Illness in the Elderly. Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Sep 9.

      • kellymbray

        “but leave mine the hell alone!”

        Exactly. Keep your disease spreading little ones away from mine or homeschool.

        • Marcos Acevedo

          Bro do you understand that your children are a threat to mine ? Vaccinated childeren shed the virus after they are immunized. Your kids spread disease.

          • Andrew Lazarus

            “Shedding” is a myth based in the antivax belief that they are pure and the vaccinated are defiled. It’s theoretically possible for a few (not all) vaccines, but it seldom happens in practice. When it does, it’s the weakened vaccine strain that gets shed, not the wild version the unvaccinated are trying to donate.

          • Marcos Acevedo

            You people are always rationalize all your problems away. Your post first says that shedding is a myth then you say that it’s theoretically possible. Then you minimize the weight of you comments with only weekend vaccines shed. Come on you can have it both ways. My problem is that the public a is not awhere of these side effects, all the while saying that vaccines are 100% safe. They are not 100% safe! They do have side effects, and now your trying to force these vaccines on my children in order to recive a public education.

          • discripplemation

            “Shedding” as you want the word to be used is a myth. No ethical medical provider has EVER EVER said that vaccines are 100% “safe”; risk/benefit analysis, learn what it means. Nor will any ethical medical provider ever tell you they are 100% effective. The TRUE “side effects” of vaccination are well known, and that info has been widely publicly disseminated. And excuse me, but your little rant about ppl “forcing” you to vaccinate your kids so that THEIRS can have a public education? Sorry, no, ALL taxpayers have the right to avail themselves of that public education, it’s not available JUST for your kids, your little Typhoid Marys actually do NOT have a right to spread communicable disease in public, taxpayer funded schools. Either you make them incapable of spreading those illnesses, or you school them at home, which so many ppl choose to do anyway, because apparently, the public school system, being as it’s run by the government, is corrupt. The corrupt government “forcing” you to vaccinate, being such a HUGE issue for you, I can’t see why an idiot like you would WANT their kid in a corrupt, government run public school, anyway.

          • cable1977

            What medical professional has ever stated that vaccines are 100% safe?

          • madcapfeline

            “weekend vaccines”? I prefer the “‘every-other-Tuesday” vaccines myself. /snark

            Also, no one anywhere has ever said vaccines are 100% safe. This is one of the lies anti-vaxxers tell themselves to make the cognitive dissonance more bearable. Nothing is 100% safe. An individual is far more likely to die in an automobile accident or choke to death on a carrot than they are to suffer adverse reactions from immunizations. But that doesn’t stop people from owning and operating motor vehicles, or getting their five servings of veggies a day,does it? Like everything else, vaccines are risk vs. reward. Rational people recognize that the risks posed by vaccines are negligible compared to the risks of catching the diseases they protect against. I’d much rather my children have a sore arm or leg for a few days than to suffer blindness from the measles, contracture from polio and/or death from pertussis.

          • Andrew Lazarus

            The existence of disease outbreaks from shedding is a myth. It happens too seldom in practice to be significant. Vaccinated people may, for some diseases, spread the disease if their vaccination fails and they get sick. But the three largest measles outbreaks of 2013 were all traced to unvaccinated Americans who brought the virus back from overseas. Importing and spreading these diseases is an antivax problem. Shedding is a red herring.

          • Jeri

            That is a lie. They were traced to VACCINATED persons. I’ll tell you what. Go read the Merck insert for the vaccine. Come back here if the insert DOES NOT say that you can get measles from the “attenuated” virus. So…. let’s use a littel easy logic… a vaccinated person gets measles from taking the vaccine… then goes to school or a park or a mall… and you think that is better than a person without a vaccine and no measles? Shedding is quite real or whatever word you want to use. Look at the warnings from the vax company that you cannot sue when things go awry. Look at all the other warnings on that insert.

            ADVERSE REACTIONS
            The following adverse reactions are listed in decreasing order of severity, without regard to causality,
            within each body system category and have been reported during clinical trials, with use of the marketed
            vaccine, or with use of monovalent or bivalent vaccine containing measles, mumps, or rubella:
            Body as a Whole
            Panniculitis; atypical measles; fever; syncope; headache; dizziness; malaise; irritability.
            Cardiovascular System
            Vasculitis.
            Digestive System
            Pancreatitis; diarrhea; vomiting; parotitis; nausea.
            7
            Endocrine System
            Diabetes mellitus.
            Hemic and Lymphatic System
            Thrombocytopenia (see WARNINGS, Thrombocytopenia); purpura; regional lymphadenopathy;
            leukocytosis.
            Immune System
            Anaphylaxis and anaphylactoid reactions have been reported as well as related phenomena such as
            angioneurotic edema (including peripheral or facial edema) and bronchial spasm in individuals with or
            without an allergic history.
            Musculoskeletal System
            Arthritis; arthralgia; myalgia.
            Arthralgia and/or arthritis (usually transient and rarely chronic), and polyneuritis are features of
            infection with wild-type rubella and vary in frequency and severity with age and sex, being greatest in
            adult females and least in prepubertal children. This type of involvement as well as myalgia and
            paresthesia, have also been reported following administration of MERUVAX II.
            Chronic arthritis has been associated with wild-type rubella infection and has been related to
            persistent virus and/or viral antigen isolated from body tissues. Only rarely have vaccine recipients
            developed chronic joint symptoms.
            Following vaccination in children, reactions in joints are uncommon and generally of brief duration. In
            women, incidence rates for arthritis and arthralgia are generally higher than those seen in children
            (children: 0-3%; women: 12-26%),{17,56,57} and the reactions tend to be more marked and of longer
            duration. Symptoms may persist for a matter of months or on rare occasions for years. In adolescent
            girls, the reactions appear to be intermediate in incidence between those seen in children and in adult
            women. Even in women older than 35 years, these reactions are generally well tolerated and rarely
            interfere with normal activities.
            Nervous System
            Encephalitis; encephalopathy; measles inclusion body encephalitis (MIBE) (see
            CONTRAINDICATIONS); subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE); Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS);
            acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM); transverse myelitis; febrile convulsions; afebrile
            convulsions or seizures; ataxia; polyneuritis; polyneuropathy; ocular palsies; paresthesia.
            Experience from more than 80 million doses of all live measles vaccines given in the U.S. through
            1975 indicates that significant central nervous system reactions such as encephalitis and
            encephalopathy, occurring within 30 days after vaccination, have been temporally associated with
            measles vaccine very rarely.{58} In no case has it been shown that reactions were actually caused by
            vaccine. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has pointed out that “a certain number of cases
            of encephalitis may be expected to occur in a large childhood population in a defined period of time even
            when no vaccines are administered”. However, the data suggest the possibility that some of these cases
            may have been caused by measles vaccines. The risk of such serious neurological disorders following
            live measles virus vaccine administration remains far less than that for encephalitis and encephalopathy
            with wild-type measles (one per two thousand reported cases).
            Post-marketing surveillance of the more than 200 million doses of M-M-R and M-M-R II that have
            been distributed worldwide over 25 years (1971 to 1996) indicates that serious adverse events such as
            encephalitis and encephalopathy continue to be rarely reported.{17}
            There have been reports of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) in children who did not have
            a history of infection with wild-type measles but did receive measles vaccine. Some of these cases may
            have resulted from unrecognized measles in the first year of life or possibly from the measles vaccination.
            Based on estimated nationwide measles vaccine distribution, the association of SSPE cases to measles
            vaccination is about one case per million vaccine doses distributed. This is far less than the association
            with infection with wild-type measles, 6-22 cases of SSPE per million cases of measles. The results of a
            retrospective case-controlled study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
            suggest that the overall effect of measles vaccine has been to protect against SSPE by preventing
            measles with its inherent higher risk of SSPE.{59}
            Cases of aseptic meningitis have been reported to VAERS following measles, mumps, and rubella
            vaccination. Although a causal relationship between the Urabe strain of mumps vaccine and aseptic
            meningitis has been shown, there is no evidence to link Jeryl Lynn™ mumps vaccine to aseptic
            meningitis.
            8
            Respiratory System
            Pneumonia; pneumonitis (see CONTRAINDICATIONS); sore throat; cough; rhinitis.
            Skin
            Stevens-Johnson syndrome; erythema multiforme; urticaria; rash; measles-like rash; pruritis.
            Local reactions including burning/stinging at injection site; wheal and flare; redness (erythema);
            swelling; induration; tenderness; vesiculation at injection site.
            Special Senses — Ear
            Nerve deafness; otitis media.
            Special Senses — Eye
            Retinitis; optic neuritis; papillitis; retrobulbar neuritis; conjunctivitis.
            Urogenital System
            Epididymitis; orchitis.
            Other
            Death

          • Andrew Lazarus

            Putting falsehoods in capital letters does not make them any more true. I repeat: the three largest measles outbreaks of 2013 were all traced to unvaccinated Americans. Amish outbreak. Ultra-Orthodox Jews’ outbreak. In the latter, not one single victim was vaccinated. The third outbreak was at a Texas church that didn’t believe in vaccination.

            As for the massive copy-paste you dumped here, re-read the part I have put in bold.

            The following adverse reactions are listed in decreasing order of severity, without regard to causality

          • jeri

            And have been proven patently false. I won’t accept your links any more than you would accept mine. The difference is that I acknowledge that… you degrade would degrade me for it.

            I notice you didn’t mention Disneyland? is that because even the MSM (caps okay there?) was later forced to retract and state that is was due to a vaccinated patient zero?

            I’m sorry that you don’t like my STYLE of posting. But I think the fact that you FOCUS on that proves you don’t accept other human beings and their DIVERSITY. Nothing more. Lower-case, camel-case, title-case… the points are still the points.

            Does the “massive copy and paste” hurt my cause? Another red herring? I was saving you the time. I distorted nothing at all. And I am fine with decreasing severity to the list. Because my point was the first one on the list.

            Shall we keep doing this? I use facts… you attack me and I still go back to the exact same points that you help me prove and then you attack, you give non double blind reports… you’re smart, i’m dumb because i paste items from Merck……. blah blah blah blah

            But I have given in to one day of kicking the hornets nest. Honestly, I don’t have the energy to try to convince you of anything more than what I have tried. I don’t even understand the logic or vitriol.

            I’ll just say this in parting to you all. I respect and indeed defend your RIGHT to do whatever you want. You should reciprocate that. I’ll keep my kids out of your schools. You keep your hands out of my pockets by trying to make me pay for them. Stand on your own two feet, not mine.

          • Andrew Lazarus

            No one has found Patient Zero of the Disney epidemic. Go to whatever antivax site you got that from, check their source. And keep going. There are no mainstream media saying it.

            Disease detectives have said they likely may never find patient zero — or the person who triggered the outbreak — but believe it’s someone who brought measles into the country. [San José Mercury News]

            On the 2013 epidemics, I can give you CDC, mainstream media, new media: that not a single victim in the NYC epidemic was vaccinated is not even in dispute. No one is as easy to con as a cynic: now you get all your truth from people who write whatever they believe independent of facts.

            As for the copy/paste, Jeri, it’s rather sad, but it’s also evident that you didn’t understand the part about “causality”.

          • jeri

            It really is sad that i did. It was a simple point about getting measles from the vax. It’s reprehensible that you don’t understand the part about causality. There would be no need to put it in at all. Oh wait… I need to tell you this… driving a car will not give you herpes. Just thought you should know that random fact.

            The sad truth is that you view your sources as legit and I don’t. I afford you that respect. You don’t reciprocate. That’s the way it is with your type. That’s exactly why you lose.

            “Go to whatever antivax site you got that from, check their source. And keep going. There are no mainstream media saying it.”

            I don’t understand so you are saying I must find it on your approved sites? But I don’t do that to you.

            Quick question for you… out of the 150 or so infected with measles in Disneyland… how many died? Pick any outlet you want. This isn’t going to bode well for your deadly measles theory.. just a warning up front, because I like to help the less fortunate.

          • Andrew Lazarus

            Jeri, there are sites out there that will tell you that disease is from Jews poisoning the water. Who is this vaccinated Patient Zero? I don’t expect a name, that would violate privacy laws, but usually they will explain how that person got sick, e.g., trip to Asia. Do your sources have anything to say other than “it was a vaccinated person”? How did they conclude that? Because unvaccinated people are so pure they can’t get sick?

            Once you decide it is all a giant conspiracy, that the CDC isn’t disseminating information about Patient Zero like they do when it is an unvaccinated person, there’s literally no end to where your imagination can take you. But don’t be shocked when 99.5% of the public declines to enter your world.

          • Katia

            ” how many died”

            So as long as they all lived, regardless of measles’ 30% complication rate, that’s OK with you?

          • Reality022

            jeri said innumerately, “Quick question for you… out of the 150 or so infected with measles in Disneyland… how many died?”

            If the death rate from measles in the USA is 1 per 1000 clinical cases, how many clinical cases must there be to have a 95% chance of a death?

            — Maths literate commenters please refrain for a day as to give jeri a chance to show us her epidemiology acumen. (I’m looking at you Lazarus.)

          • Bobby boucher

            No. I’m pretty sure no one died because it was never really that serious of an outbreak. Disney just tried to cover their ass because they have a filthy disease plagued theme park. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that they exploit little children in foreign disease infested countries. I wonder if they pay to have them vaccinated. Meh, they are probably much too cheap for that so I’m guessing no.

          • Katia

            Please post this MSM article that says Patient Zero was vaccinated. No posty, no creddie!

          • Reality022

            Won’t happen, Katia. Jeri is just doing what good little anti-vaccinationists always do – lying.

            You’ll also note that she doesn’t provide many citations for her bizarre statements and the ones she does provide say exactly the opposite of what she claims.

            Why do anti-vaccine cultists constantly lie?

          • Katia

            I know! I thought it was worth asking.

          • Bobby boucher

            Citations? You post mainstream crap that anyone can find in 2 seconds. Dont they train monkeys to do what you do? You are absolutely useless.

          • Reality022
          • Bobby boucher

            Lol butterhurt by some slum who lives his pathetic life online as a pen salesman?? I’ll probly get over it sooner than later.

          • Bobby boucher

            Katia can you find me an exact % of outbreaks caused by unvaccinated? Not just hypothetical crap based off garbage wikipedia sources? If you can’t, you are completely and utterly useless, and not worth anyone’s time.

          • Katia

            http://www.vox.com/2015/1/29/7929791/measles-outbreak-2014
            Measles outbreak in Ohio Amish, started by returning missionary

            http://www.vox.com/2015/1/29/7929791/measles-outbreak-2014
            Texas church outbreak

            Virtually all measles outbreaks in the US have been caused by unvaccinated people. So the exact percentage is 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999.

            Now please tell Jeri she’s completely and utterly useless, and not worth anyone’s time if she doesn’t post a link to the this supposedly MSM article that says the Disney Patient Zero was vaccinated. Thank you.

          • Bobby boucher

            Lol brilliant.. you find me two pathetic articles and call it 99.9% percent. Here I think I’ve found an article of equal value here.http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/01/18/history-vaccination.aspx

          • Katia

            Equal value by Mercola? You really don’t understand the issue.

          • Bobby boucher

            You really are useless. I asked you for a real number. Not two cheesy articles and a brain dead conclusion. You need to do better than that, and try not to be such a useless slum.

          • Katia

            You obviously don’t understand epidemiology.

          • Bobby boucher

            Lol you have zero proof that patient zero was not vaccinated. You truly don’t. You just use hypothetical crap when it suits you. Probably because you are a trashy online slum.

          • AutismDad

            Blaming Jews/ Uncool

          • Justthefacts

            An astroturfing loon has shown up. Another expert on inserts.

          • Donnie Rotten

            Sooooo… I assume right after you posted that meme you figured out that it would discredit every MD right? Who is the loon? How many hours do you think they put in? You probably don’t get it do you?

            That’s what happens when you attack instead of sticking to the argument. You always look worse. I’m actually trying to help you here.

          • Justthefacts

            I do believe that it makes a point about “self styled MDs” who think they know everything because they surf the net. Nearly every MD I have seen here is intelligent and reasonable.

            Reread the Meme. I’ll clarify it next time.
            .

          • Donnie Rotten

            Is it next time yet? And who is the MD here. Haha. You know them?

          • Mike Stevens

            “However, the data suggest the possibility that some of these cases
            may have been caused by measles vaccines. The risk of such serious neurological disorders following live measles virus vaccine administration remains far less than that for encephalitis and encephalopathy with wild-type measles (one per two thousand reported cases).”

            “The results of a retrospective case-controlled study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest that the overall effect of measles vaccine has been to protect against SSPE by preventing measles with its inherent higher risk of SSPE.{59}”

            Thanks for reminding us.

          • Jeri

            So you agree then. There is causality. You just don’t thinks it’s all that much.
            I never said how much, just that it can cause it. Just that there is a warning for it by the company.

            It’s lazarus the vax lover you are fighting with not me.

            Thank you for reminding us.

            P.S. It’s sad that one dumb anti-vaxxer can take on all of you

          • Mike Stevens

            I think you’ll find none of “us” have ever said vaccines have no side effects.
            It all boils down to a question of risk and benefit, and as you have clearly indicated yourself, vaccines are one heck of a lot better than the alternative of getting the disease.

            “P.S. It’s sad that one dumb anti-vaxxer can take on all of you”
            Well. it is sad that there is only one dumb antivaxer who will try. I for one like a decent challenge.

          • Katia

            What a waste of bandwidth. We can all access that any time we want.

          • Brooke Dunne

            No kidding, huh. Unfortunately, that’s the delusional little bubble this 1% fringe group occupies.

            Here’s the real story:

            Ohio Measles Outbreak Is Biggest in U.S. Since 1996
            http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/ohio-measles-outbreak-biggest-u-s-1996-n103581

            May 2014. Started with an unvaccinated Amish traveller returning from the Phillipines.

            Texas Megachurch At Center of Measles Outbreak
            http://www.npr.org/2013/09/01/217746942/texas-megachurch-at-center-of-measles-outbreak

            Sept 2013. Again, unvaccinated church members brought measles back to their community after visiting France.

            Shedding? An imaginary problem. It just doesn’t happen.

          • Reality022

            Jeri said, “Come back here if the insert DOES NOT say that you can get measles from the “attenuated” virus.”

            Gee, you left out this part of the mmrii insert that directly addresses “shedding” and transmission of attenuated vaccine measles virus to the unvaccinated:
            PRECAUTIONS
            There are no reports of transmission of live attenuated measles or mumps viruses from vaccinees to susceptible contacts.”

            They flat-out say there has never been a report of transmission of measles or mumps from the vaccinated to the unvaccinated.

            Now why would you leave out the part in the insert that directly addresses your claim?
            It couldn’t be because it states the exact opposite of what you are claiming it states?

            Readers are now allowed to ask:
            Why do anti-vaccinationists constantly lie?

          • Brooke Dunne

            Yup. That’s exactly why their little petition drive failed.

            These people are too stupid to realize how stupid they are.

          • Kelly

            ‘You people’ do realize that you’re attempting to be rational with someone who used ‘awhere’, right?

          • thabe331

            And you antivaxxers ignore all rational comments in favor of your paranoid delusions

          • Justthefacts

            It’s theoretically possible but it’s a myth because of the lack of reported cases. I believe the number of reported cases is between zero and one. Big foot is theoretically possible but it’s a myth. It’s pretty clear who is doing the “rationalizations” here.

          • AutismDad

            You say shedding is a myth, then say it happens. Credibility zero.

          • cable1977

            Not every vaccine given involves a live virus. Most of them, in fact, do not.

            Also, even if the vaccine virus was shed, the shed version of the virus would be the attenuated version of the virus, not the wild-type virus that causes disease.

            Seriously, Biology 101 is not that difficult of a course “bro”. Try it out sometime.

      • cable1977

        No one is forcing you to vaccinate your children. You have every right to not vaccinate your child, you simply then don’t get the benefits of living in society (i.e. admittance to school).

        • Jeri

          You mean you get to drain their resources; making those that do not agree with your life style pay for it?

          Simply say that if you don’t use public schools, then you don’t have to pay taxes for them. Then, I am on board with whatever you want to do with you and your family. Just don’t force me to pay for your choices. I would never force you to pay for mine.

          • cable1977

            Is this the new anti-vax tact? You’re the 3rd person today to use this rather poor argument. It’s selfish libertarian nonsense that tries to pretend that we live in a different society then we want to live in.

            I pay for the choices of others every year. I have no children and will not have any children and yet I still pay for public school. Why? Because it is part of the responsibility one has when one lives within a society. So, I am already paying for the choices of others, including yourself if you have any children. That also doesn’t address the various deductions you take on your taxes. If you take deductions on your taxes that I don’t take, then I am subsidizing your choices through my own taxes. If you get a child tax credit, then I am footing the bill for the choice you made to produce a little anti-vaxxer.

            If you want to live in a society where you bear no responsibility towards the other people who live in that society, you are more than welcome to go start a new nation. However, this country has been quite a different type of society for a long time.

      • BigBuccoFan

        Your child is free. Do as you wish. But there is a very valid reason why they are not permitted to attend school if they are not immunized. It is because of children like mine who have a constitutional right to a free education. Your child’s right to freedom cannot infringe upon another’s rights Please continue to read and you will understand.

        If child is vaccinated but the vaccine doesn’t take, he can’t spread it to children who had a vaccine that did take. He can only spread it to the 0.5% or so where the vaccine didn’t take.

        This is most important to a child like mine with cystic fibrosis, who can die from pneumonia sociated with measles, whooping cough, or chicken pox. Yes chicken pox. He is vaccinated, but God forbid his vaccine doesn’t work, it would be nice to think that most of the children in the school are incapable of carrying these diseases. It’s not a perfect world. But my little fellow is only seven and has a right to an education too. We live in West Virginia where there are mandatory vaccination laws. And don’t tell me I’m uneducated about Autism. I have an MD from University of Pittsburgh and my child suffers from Autism also. We continue to get vaccinations against the flu every year, and childhood preventable diseases on schedule as recommended.

        • BigBuccoFan

          And it’s not just cystic fibrosis. Measles, whooping cough, and chickenpox can cause serious pneumonia in children with severe asthma also. For children with weakened immune systems, from HIV, chronic illnesses of any type, cancer, or recent chemotherapy. The list goes on.

          Due to vaccination efforts, most people think measles whooping cough are diseases that are eradicated. Use Google to search. endemic and measles or whooping cough and you will see their been outbreaks in unvaccinated communities. If you’re interested enough to read these posts, you can also verify that measles can cause blindness in normal children in a small percentage. Parents don’t hesitate to take their child to the doctor for strep throat, even those there is a small risk of rheumatic heart disease, but they get penicillin to treat it.

  • kellymbray

    It looks like there are less than 145,000 signatures on the SB277 referendum. This should be a reality check and a wake up call to the antivaxer / pro-disease crowd. The problem is that if they could actually learn they wouldn’t be antivaxers.

    • Cypher

      Spreading more misinformation I see. Glad to see you’re still on the payroll.

    • Brooke Dunne

      Sacramento County and Orange County still haven’t been added to the totals, but you’re right. They won’t get it.

      • Reality022

        Orange, Riverside, Alameda, Sacramento, Ventura, Fresno, Sonoma with 4,869,826 registered voters haven’t reported.
        As of Tuesday the referendum is garnering a raw count of ~1.23% of registered voters in the counties that have reported – they needed ~2.10% valid or ~3.00% raw with errors.
        I predict the final gross tally will be ~216,000. With errors the valid count would be ~158,000.
        I find it amusing that Shannon Kroner of LA County told the latimes on 9/28 that she was turning in >50,000 and yesterday the official raw count came out at 43,150.

        This whole thing is very telling about the “highly educated” anti-vaccine cult.

        • Bobby boucher

          But you are a slum who’s pathetic life revolves around social media, so you aren’t much better. How’s McDonald’s working out for you?

      • Reality022

        The Wed. 10/07 numbers are in.
        8 counties reporting, including 2 more listed as “Past deadline” for 0 counts.
        These added 22,218 raw sigs from 1,673,807 registered voters for a running total of:
        176,157 raw sigs from 14,155,760 reg. voters = 1.24%

        There are only 4 counties remaining:
        Fresno, Orange, Riverside, Sacramento with 3,392,002 registered voters.
        From those remaining are needed 189,723 raw sigs to merely meet the minimum requirement if they are all valid.
        189,723 / 3,392,002 = 5.60%

        Still going with a prediction of ~216,000 raw sigs total.

    • Katia

      Yes, and if Colorado is any example, once they check the signatures, some will turn out to be invalid. FAIL!

      • Reality022

        Yesterday’s report included the small counts from Kings and Plumas Counties including the verified valid sigs.
        Kings turned in a raw count of 148 of which 112 were valid = 75.7%
        Plumas turned in a raw count of 626 of which 454 were valid = 72.5%

        About as expected. Of course, the error rate is greater in the larger counties due to bad sig. data and duplicates and the sheer number of sigs.

  • SB277 Facts

    This article fails to disclose that Dorit Reiss is a biased advocate, affiliated with groups like Voices for Vaccines. She writes prolifically in support of government-mandated vaccinations in general, and of SB277 specifically, on countless blog posts and article comment sections. She is an academic, not a lawyer, and she has never passed the bar. Also the article fails to mention that California’s constitution provides an explicit right to public education, which SB277 clearly limits.

    • Katia

      LOL, that lunatic group, “Voices for Vaccines”. It’s a parent group promoting vaccines. Too funny!

    • bpatient

      SB277 Facts wrote, “Also the article fails to mention that California’s constitution
      provides an explicit right to public education, which SB277 clearly limits.”

      Perhaps you missed this clear statement in the short article to which you responded: “all California children have a constitutional right to an education.”

      BTW, Doctor Reiss has a degree in law and, as well, a PhD from the Jurisprudence and Social Policy program at UC Berkeley. As a University of California law professor who specializes in health and social policy issues, Doctor Reiss seems qualified to comment on the law related to health and social policy.

      • vaxfactcheckker

        Dorit Reiss’ family owns stock in GlaxoSmithKline, which was disclosed in the Conflict of Interest Statement of her paper, “Recommending Vaccines & Recouping Costs of Non-Vaccination”, published in 2014.

        https://twitter.com/joegooding/status/623260667164905472

        • bpatient

          Potential conflicts of interest are interesting, aren’t they? For example, the lead researcher of a series of studies long supported by the antivaccine groups SafeMinds and the National Autism Association recently reported the results of a five-year study of the effects of vaccination (MMR, MMR plus thimerosal-containing vaccines, an accelerated complete vaccine schedule, etc.) on nonhuman primates, and disclosed that there is no apparent effect.

          That researcher and her partner were the parents of a child with ASD and plaintiffs in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding; she is the Research Director of the Johnson Center for Child Health & Development, which was known as Thoughtful House when disgraced anti-vaccine video director/former researcher Andrew Wakefield worked there; and her partner was not only Wakefield’s IT guru at Thoughtful House but also a member of the Board of Directors of SafeMinds. I suppose that that history might somehow, somehow, be construed to suggest that she is ardently anti-vaccine. (Well, in a study of brain growth in macaques, her pilot project work used the ridiculously flawed control group of only two (!) monkeys to suggest that the entirely normal brain growth of her vaccinated group (as shown by previous work in both humans and macaques) was somehow abnormal due to vaccination.) However, now that her much more complete and rigorous work directly contradicts her earlier pilot studies, anti-vaccine activists are accusing her and her co-authors of a conflict of interest: she must have been paid off.

          She (Doctor Laura Hewitson) wrote: “These data are in contrast to our previous pilot study…. This discrepancy is most likely due to the larger number of animals in the present study providing more accurate estimates.” [Curtis B, Liberato N, Rulien M, Morrisroe K, Kenney C, Yutuc V, Ferrier C, Marti CN, Mandell D, Burbacher TM, Sackett GP, Hewitson L. Examination of the safety of pediatric vaccine schedules in a non-human primate model: assessments of neurodevelopment, learning, and social behavior. Environ Health Perspect. 2015 Jun;123(6):579-89.]

          Perhaps someone in her family owns stock in a pharmaceutical company.

          • cable1977

            Didn’t you know that conflicts of interest or personal biases only count when they are pro-vaccine? Anti-vaccine biases are irrelevant.

          • thabe331

            Kinda like how antivaxxers can ignore evidence that doesn’t tell them what they want to hear.

        • Katia

          Good grief! Talk about attempting to smear someone! Does Dorit herself own this stock? If not, what difference does it make if a family member does? God help me if I’m responsible for my adult family members’ investments!

    • Accountable

      Dorit Reiss (UC Hastings) is a Public Sector employee who is trying to eliminate personal and religious exemptions for schoolchildren. Yet, she and her colleagues in the UC system can decline for personal reasons the very same vaccinations listed in SB277. The disturbing hypocrisy here is that all Public Sector Employees (like our Legislators and Dorit) can decline vaccinations for any reason, but they are bent on taking that option away from schoolchildren, daycare workers, and parent volunteers.

      In fact, Dorit knows that in California, “employees may be exempt from vaccine for medical or religious reasons”. So, she is going after schoolchildren who are not protected by EEOC, Title VII: Religious Accommodation. http://www.mdchhs.com/can-my-b

      According to Calif Code, Calif Healthcare workers have the right to decline vaccinations. They just have to be “offered” a handful of vaccines, not the full list detailed in SB277. They can decline them (with no justification) under Title 8, Code 5199, Appendix C1:

      1) State Immunization Laws for Healthcare Workers and Patients – CA (go to the
      corresponding footnotes): http://www2a.cdc.gov/vaccines/

      2) Appendix C1-Vaccination Declination Statement: http://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/5

      Physicians directly dealing with infectious people have the CHOICE to utilize PBE’s, while they are the same ones pushing to deny schoolchildren and daycare workers access to PBE’s (AMA Opinion 9.1333). http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pu

      It is discriminatory that a significant number of individuals in California have the ability to decline vaccinations (including healthcare workers who care for people with infectious diseases) but schoolchildren who may never be exposed to any of the infectious diseases listed in SB277 cannot have PBE’s. If California law protects “frontline” healthcare workers from mandatory vaccinations, then it is discriminatory to select a small group of people, i.e. school children (SB277) or daycare workers/parent volunteers (SB792), for mandatory vaccinations.

      Jacobson V. Mass. clearly acknowledged that the statute applied equally to all adults, “But this cannot be deemed a denial of the equal protection of the laws to adults; for the statute is applicable equally to all in like condition, and there are obviously reasons why regulations may be appropriate for adults which could not be safely applied to persons of tender years.” SB277 and
      SB792 don’t apply equally to all in order to maintain herd immunity for 39 million Californians, as alleged. Even Judge Harlan (Jacobson v. Mass.) cautioned that if the state overreached in its police power and targeted specific populations, the courts would have to step in.

      • microlith

        It is discriminatory that a significant number of individuals in California have the ability to decline vaccinations (including healthcare workers who care for people with infectious diseases)

        They may have the ability to decline but many hospitals mandate vaccinations for their staff simply due to how great the risk is for transmission. This is because the State does not control the hospitals like it does the schools.

        If California law protects “frontline” healthcare workers from mandatory vaccinations, then it is discriminatory to select a small group of people, i.e. school children (SB277) or daycare workers/parent volunteers (SB792), for mandatory vaccinations.

        It is not discriminatory, it pushes parents to engage in their responsibility to get their children vaccinated. They can opt out, but if they opt out for utterly nonsensical reasons (i.e. anything not specified by a doctor) then they get to handle their child’s education on their own.

        The hospital requirements are also different because healthy adults tend to have stronger immune systems, may have already fought off the diseases in the past, or may already be immune. Children, however, tend to be slightly more vulnerable and are in frequent contact with children who are exposed to new viruses/bacteria regularly, and may share a home with those too young to be vaccinated or whom cannot receive the vaccinations for medical reasons.

        Suffice it to say, there are virtually no valid arguments in defense of a “personal belief exemption,” particularly not when infectious diseases don’t give a damn about your personal beliefs.

        • Marcos Acevedo

          What happened to medical advice? I guess we are now turning over our responsibility as parents to the state? Are our kids no longer ours? Do our kids become to the state? Sounds like our right to parent has been turned into a privilege. Remember privileges unlike right can be revoked at any time and for any reason.

          • bpatient

            You are of course free to make many decisions regarding your children, but the government appropriately mandates that your infant must be protected by a car seat rather than swathed in bubble wrap or soft blankets when riding in an automobile.

          • Todd Guthrie

            You have all the right to parent that you want, but the law says that if you choose not to vaccinate your child, he or she will not be attending a California public school. Looked at a certain way, this choice can actually make you a better parent, as homeschooling gives you the opportunity to pass on all the asinine and invalid BS you have assimilated about vaccines to your children, unfettered by actual facts or scientific data.

          • Brooke Dunne

            Nothing but upside.

          • cable1977

            The vast majority of medical professionals recommend vaccines, as do all of the major medical societies. They all agree that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks. But you aren’t looking for medical advice, you are simply looking for confirmation of your previously held belief.

          • madcapfeline

            And what of responsibilities? You have the “right” to have children, and you have the “right” to raise them in whatever manner you see fit. This of course means that parents have the “right” to sell their children into slavery, yes? Or to violently beat them, starve them, or neglect them? No, they absolutely do not, and we take children away from people like that. “My kids, my rights” is only viable if people actually do their jobs as parents. Yes, you have parental rights, but along with them you have parental responsibilities, and if you can not or choose not to meet your parental responsibilities, then your “right to parent” absolutely can, should, and will be revoked.

          • microlith

            What are you on about?

      • bpatient

        Indeed, all adults (including “frontline” healthcare workers) should be vaccinated. Thanks for pointing that out.

        I don’t understand why you believe that Professor Reiss is hypocritical; do you have even the slightest glimmer of a smidgen of evidence that that expert in the law and social policy declines vaccinations while remaining “bent on taking that option away from schoolchildren, daycare workers, and parent volunteers?” If so, could you please provide that evidence? Thanks.

        • Todd Guthrie

          Healthcare workers can decline vaccines, just as hospitals and medical practices can decline to hire them if they aren’t vaccinated. I suspect this happens frequently, and serves as a considerable spur for vaccination.

          • Katia

            “The Lord works in mysterious ways”. If health care workers do the right thing (vaccinate) for the wrong reasons (facing loss of job if not compliant), so what?

    • Andrew Lazarus

      If you think SB277 violates the California Constitution, the courts are open to you. But I expect you to lose. The kids whose vaccinations didn’t work, plus the pediatric cancer cases, are also entitled to public education, and there has never been a right to introduce diseases into public space.

      Remember, most judges are old enough to remember measles, and their parents remember polio. They won’t be as enthusiastic about bringing them back as you are.

      • Marcos Acevedo

        So by that same logic can I remove your childeren from your care in order to quarantine them for the public good when they get a cold or any other sickness? It’s for the common good that I will remove your rights.

        • cable1977

          People were quarantined during the issues with Ebola in Texas, so yes, people, including children, can be quarantined for the public good. But the reason for quarantine is based on the seriousness of the illness. In addition, there are numerous cases where children have been removed from the care of parents because of an inability to provide life-saving care to their children due to personal beliefs.

          You have a child, it isn’t your slave. Your parental rights to impose your personally held beliefs on your children have limits, especially when those beliefs are not based in any evidence.

          • Marcos Acevedo

            I feel sorry for you. You are a sad person to witness. You are ruled by fear. A life ruled by fear is not a life at all. Your want to control another persons actions stems from your fears of everything. You talk about Ebola, purtissis, and polio like these are at epidemic proportions when the are not. The chances of you contracting purtissis is 0.8 out of 10,000. Polio almost non existent in the US. You need to stop watching movies like outbreak and chill out.

          • Kelly

            How do you think those horrible diseases have become ‘non existent’?? I’d love to hear your theory on that. Hahaha

          • Reality022

            Drumming circles and patchouli?

          • thabe331

            He probably thinks that our diets and water sanitation are the reason. That’s what loons like Mercola tell him

          • cable1977

            “You are ruled by fear.”

            Not really. I simply don’t think that people like yourself should make comments that are factually untrue and are intended to mislead others. I have this real passion for people who lie or make misleading statements. It just gets under my skin and I feel the need to counter asinine arguments.

            “Your want to control another persons actions stems from your fears of everything.”

            Except that, as I have stated elsewhere, vaccines are not in any way mandatory. Any parent has the right to refuse them. The interesting thing is, you didn’t even try to present a counter argument to what I wrote. So, let me ask you, specifically, why should the right of a parent to their belief’s supersede the rights of a child to be healthy?

            “You talk about Ebola, purtissis, and polio like these are at epidemic proportions when the are not.”

            Where did I mention pertussis or polio? I didn’t, so I’m left with either the conclusion that you can’t read or….well, that’s the only conclusion I can come up with.

            I mentioned Ebola because you were arguing that we shouldn’t quarantine people for the public good and that is completely asinine and has already been shown to be necessary. The reason Ebola didn’t spread in the US was BECAUSE of the quarantine of those who were in contact with the patient. Epidemiology 101.

            “The chances of you contracting purtissis is 0.8 out of 10,000. Polio almost non existent in the US. ”

            Yes, because people vaccinate. If people stop vaccinating then these disease would become resurgent, as they have in numerous places.

            “You need to stop watching movies like outbreak and chill out. ”

            Take that red herring, add a little bit of seasoning, and fry it up good next time.

            You know who I feel sorry for? People who can’t actually make good arguments. You think something should be a certain way, then fine, make a good argument as to why. Concern trolling combine with strawmen on the other hand make for a pathetic excuse for intellectual debate.

          • Marcos Acevedo

            Well then chew on this! I pay for the public school system though local taxes I pay. If I choose to not vaccinate my child then I do not have access to the schools I help pay for. Do you think it is right that I must pay for a school system I can not access? Is that not discriminatory? Vacinating my childeren is not an option. Have your childeren ever suffered a side effect of a vaccine? My childeren suffer from seizures after each vaccination. Have your childeren ever had a seizure? Would you willing give your child something that would cause seizures? Even though my childeren have seizures after each vaccination they would not qualify for an exemption under the new law!

          • cable1977

            “Do you think it is right that I must pay for a school system I can not access? Is that not discriminatory?”

            I don’t have any children at all, nor will I ever have any children at all and yet I pay for a school system I will never use. It’s part of what living in a society means. Because you choose not to partake in the benefits of society due to your unwillingness to vaccinate your child doesn’t take away your responsibility to society.

            “My childeren suffer from seizures after each vaccination.”

            If that is true, then you are exempt from the requirements. Having a side effect from a vaccine is a contraindication for subsequent vaccination. All you need is a doctor to state that your child suffered such a reaction and you would have a medical exemption. So, you can can all of the histrionics because they are irrelevant.

            “Even though my childeren have seizures after each vaccination they would not qualify for an exemption under the new law!”

            You, sir, are either completely ignorant of the law or a liar. Medical exemptions to vaccination continue to be allowed under the new law. So, are you not aware of that fact or are you simply lying? The direct text of the law is as follows:

            “If the parent or guardian files with the governing authority a written statement by a licensed physician to the effect that the physical condition of the child is such, or medical circumstances relating to the child are such, that immunization is not considered safe, indicating the specific nature and probable duration of the medical condition or circumstances, including, but not limited to, family medical history, for which the physician does not recommend immunization, that child shall be exempt from the requirements of Chapter 1”

            leginfo.legislature. c a . g o v /faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB277

          • Marcos Acevedo

            It’s no longer worth responding to your post. Not because your making any valid points but because your a troll. It’s obvious that your purpose to put me on the defensive and to paint me me as a bad person. I’m not here to explain my reasons for not vaccinating to you. You have no dog in this fight so what are you doing posting here? Please disappear back into the hole you crawled out of. Don’t talk to me about the safety of kids when you don’t have any.

          • cable1977

            Trolls don’t usually use documentation to prove that someone doesn’t know what they are talking about. I haven’t painted you as anything, simply demonstrated that you either don’t understand the law or that you are lying to make a point. So which is it?

            “You have no dog in this fight so what are you doing posting here?”

            Simply because I don’t have children myself doesn’t imply that I don’t know people who have children or have nieces or nephews or other relatives or friends that your nonsense could impact. And even if I didn’t, why should I not have the right to combat lies? Why should you be able to spout whatever nonsense you want unchallenged? If any of my statements above are inaccurate, you are well within your rights to point out why they are incorrect, but it appears you can’t do so. All you can seem to do is whine about me, rather than to defend your own statements. I don’t have to make you look like a bad person, you are doing that just fine on your own.

            “Don’t talk to me about the safety of kids when you don’t have any.”

            Absolute nonsense. If a person is saying that they are going to feed their child rat poison, should I not intervene because I don’t have children and I don’t know what is or is not safe for them? Your arguments are pathetic and you are simply demonstrating that you cannot respond to legitimate questions about the statements that you make. That only serves to further demonstrate the weakness of your position and your overall lack of intellectual honesty.

          • Justthefacts

            An anti-vaxxer accusing others of being ruled by fear. This is a day for me to hear a new hypocrisy from the anti-vaxx fringe. I thought I heard them all.

    • CharlieB1972

      The Federal Constitution also explicitly provides for freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, and that’s just one of the ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights. Those freedoms can be abridged when they harm others. Even the ACLU wouldn’t defend the right to follow through on ISIS’ religious beliefs that seem to require forceful conversion or death for “infidels”. Even the NRA wouldn’t defend the right to own an F-16.

  • Chris Preston

    I am a bit surprised that the petition against SB 277 gained quite so many signatures. My guess is that a lot of the signees are not against vaccination per se, but are indulging in the good old American sport of being against government.

    I am not surprised that it failed to garner sufficient signatures though.

  • Emma Andie

    I beg to differ on the stance that one can should not be ABLE to obtain a religious exemption from certain vaccines OR ANY MEDICAL PROCEDURE for that matter. In truth: both MMR and Polio vaccines contain human fetal cell lines (from aborted babies both in the 1970’s and today) . Others contain products derived from monkey kidneys, bovine serum and canine. Which ANY one should be allowed to opt out of, not just religious people. Religions around the world observe obtaining from certain foods for sacred reasons and it SHOULD BE NO different with medicine. NO ONE should be allowed to push their form of “medicine” on another person.

    • bpatient

      Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is not shared by the Supreme Court of the United States.

      • Marcos Acevedo

        The Supreme Court also ruled that black people were not human, but I guess you’d agree with that also.

        • Chris Preston

          The US Supreme Court never made this ruling.

        • lovelydestruction

          dred scott v sandford overturned by the 14th amendment

        • cable1977

          The Dred Scott decision stated that people of African descent were not citizens of the United States, but it did not state anything about whether they were or were not human. If you’re going to use inflammatory rhetoric to make a point, you should at least have the basic facts that you are stating be correct, especially since all it takes to do so is a 2 second Wikipedia search.

    • Katia

      “Somewhat paradoxically, the strongest constitutional arguments may arise
      in states that allow exemptions for religious but not secular reasons. Mississippi’s Supreme Court ruled that such a distinction violated the
      U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause by favoring religious over
      philosophical objectors (Brown v. Stone, 1979).”
      http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1508701?query=TOC&

      • thabe331

        coincidentally MS has the highest vaccination rate in the country

    • Here’s an ABC News report that gives more information about the cell lines used in some vaccines: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/aborted-fetuses-vaccines/story?id=29005539

      • Brooke Dunne

        Great article. Thanks, Lisa 🙂

    • cable1977

      You have every right not to vaccinate your child for any reason, including religious. This new law does not change that ability, it simply alters the consequences of such a choice. In our society you are free to do a great number of things. You are not, however, free to avoid the consequences of those choices, especially if those consequences are based upon how your choices impact society as a whole.

      Choosing what type of food to eat has virtually no impact on other people. Choosing not to vaccinate against highly communicable diseases and then attending school with other people certainly does have an impact on other people.

      • Emma Andie

        I understand were your coming from, however 1) Saying we can still have “religious freedom” and yet allowing the government or ANYONE to place a “consequence” on someone else’s personal religious freedom, unless their freedom is DIRECTLY harming another person, (not a perceived “possible” harm; which is known as discrimination), is discrimination. The law should not be used to discriminate against others who share a different belief and practice. 2) As it is, CA kids are 97% vaccinated, more than enough for herd immunity based on data by vaccine manufactures. Only 2.5% opt out of OR delay some, but not all vaccines, with a personal belief exemption. Less than .07% are vaccine-free. Vaccine rates have actually risen since 2012, with the personal exemption, which is SIGNED BY A DR. The media, calling all people who use the exemption “anit-vaxxers”, is propaganda and hype used to play people against each other and create an atmosphere of acceptance in these bills before they even read them or consider the true meaning. This law was NOT needed. 3) These children, the less than 3%, whom you are suggesting we segregate to home schools, will NOT be allowed to participate in homeschool programs to the same degree of other homeschooled children. Even if they only opt out of 1 vaccine, they will NOT be allowed on school campus for: teacher meetings, sports, and school related activities, events or testing, etc. It is definitely discrimination. There is NO “EQUAL” treatment for THESE homeschoolers under this law. 4) This law sets a precedence, that government can choose your medicine and if you don’t comply…”consequences”…which in a sense is setting up an atmosphere in which to call it a crime. This law is a violation of the basic human rights to decide what is placed in ones own, and their families, body. It WILL force families to have to choose between limited consent or facing the “consequence” for making an informed decision to opt-out for their personal beliefs. This is not ok! Also, a new bill, SB792, adult vaccine schedule, will cause job loss and fines for non-compiance. To force job loss, loss of education, loss of advances for your medical decisions IS a violation of human rights and true freedom. And these are only two of MANY new vaccine bills that we will see in the near future if we don’t start doing something. (See “Healthy People 2020 Act”). This is not about whether you believe in vaccines or not, this is about basic human rights.

        • cable1977

          “Saying we can still have “religious freedom” and yet allowing the
          government or ANYONE to place a “consequence” on someone else’s personal
          religious freedom”

          We decided long ago in this country that freedoms are not unlimited and that rights have limits, especially when those limits have an impact on society. You don’t get to avoid laws you don’t like simply because you claim a particular religious belief. The religious beliefs of individuals are weighed against the benefits or harms to society. In regards to vaccination, this is long settled law.

          “unless their freedom is DIRECTLY harming another person, (not a perceived “possible” harm) is discrimination.”

          There are numerous instances of the unvaccinated causing harm to other people through the transmission of disease. Would you prefer, instead, a mechanism whereby criminal charges are place upon a parent if their child catches and transmits a vaccine preventable disease to another individual? That would allow for the consequence to directly follow the harm, rather than to prevent the harm.

          A patient with Ebola may or may not transmit the disease to people that they come in contact with, so should we disallow quarantines of Ebola patients simply because their is only a possible harm associated with them contacting others?

          “As it is, CA kids are 97% vaccinated, more than enough for herd immunity
          based on data by vaccine manufactures. Only 2.5% opt out of OR delay
          some, but not all vaccines, with a personal belief exemption.”

          You have just committed the ecological fallacy by assuming that state level data is the important data to assess. It isn’t. Disease is transmitted locally, so what you would need to assess is local data where there are areas of significantly lower than 97% vaccine coverage.

          https://ww w.cd p h.ca.g o v/programs/immunize/Documents/2014-15%20CA%20Child%20Care%20Immunization%20Assessment.pdf

          “The media, calling all people who use the exemption “anit-vaxxers”, is
          propaganda and hype used to play people against each other and create an
          atmosphere of acceptance in these bills before they even read them or
          consider the true meaning.”

          “It is definitely discrimination.”

          That is correct. What I dispute is that all discrimination is bad. When we, as a society, deny the ability of an individual to practice medicine because they fail a state exam, that is discrimination.

          “This law sets a precedence, that government can choose your medicine and if you don’t comply…”consequences””

          That precedent was set decades ago, please try to study at least a little bit of history. There are also already states that do not allow personal belief or religious exemptions to vaccination, so to claim that this is somehow unprecedented shows your ignorance of both the historical legal cases around vaccination as well as the current laws across different states.

          “This is not ok!”

          That is your opinion and, as I’ve demonstrated above, is wrong.

          “Also, a new bill, SB792, adult vaccine schedule, will cause job loss and fines for non-compiance.”

          One could say the same about numerous other public health oriented laws.

          “To force job loss, loss of education, loss of advances for your medical
          decisions IS a violation of human rights and true freedom.”

          So is running a daycare while potentially exposing those in your care to communicable diseases. Why is it that folks like yourself are always so interested in your personal freedoms, but never really give much thought to how your freedoms affect the rest of society. You’ll have to forgive me if I find such attitudes rather narcissistic and self-centered.

          “This is not about whether you believe in vaccines or not, this is about basic human rights.”

          I must have missed the amendment of the Constitution that endowed you with the right to be a daycare worker. We have numerous laws that place requirements upon people in numerous industries, so please stop with the histrionics, it only demonstrates that you really don’t have an actual coherent argument to make.

          • Emma Andie

            Look I am not here to argue. This is not about believing in vaccines or not. This is about keeping your human RIGHT to choose your medicine. If you don’t think that’s important, well…I don’t know what else to tell you. If you want to get ALL vaccines in the new schedule for yourself. Fine. Say you want your kids to have ALL the vaccines in the new schedule. Fine. But don’t force your belief, in ALL of them, on others with out exceptions. Right now, that IS what’s happening.

          • cable1977

            “Look I am not here to argue.”

            Then why would you write a 400+ word response to what I wrote above. At least be honest and state that you simply don’t want your opinions challenged, nor do you want to have to defend them against the points I raised above. It’s a rather intellectually lazy tact to take, but that is your perogative.

            “This is about keeping your human RIGHT to choose your medicine.”

            Except you still have the right to choose your medicine, so your strawman is just that. If you choose not to vaccinate, however, you simply don’t retain the privilege of participating in society in the same way as those who do choose to vaccinate. Why should someone be able to reap the benefits of society if they are willing to accept the same risks as everyone else within that same society? We aren’t talking about people who have significant, uncontrollable medical conditions for which vaccination would be damaging, we are talking about people who want to use their personal beliefs to undermine the overall public health.

            “If you don’t think that’s important, well…I don’t know what else to tell you.”

            Repeating your strawman won’t make it any less strawful. Strawy?

            “But don’t force your belief, in ALL of them, on others with out exceptions.”

            There are exceptions. Individuals who cannot be vaccinated because they have an elevated risk of harm due to vaccines do not have to be vaccinated. So, to say that there are no exceptions is a complete and utter lie. You want people to have exemptions for belief, regardless of whether those beliefs are rational. So, why should your belief that is not supportable by evidence trump the significant evidence that demonstrates that not vaccinating causes a detriment to public health and that the risks of vaccination are outweighed by the benefits by orders of magnitude in some cases?

            Seatbelts cause injury and, in some cases, can actually cause the death of people in an accident. So, if I believe that I don’t want to risk my child’s life because of the potential harm due to a seatbelt, should I be free from the consequences of violating seat belt laws? Since you liked the religious freedom argument above – if I have a sincerely held religious belief that God or gods will protect me and my children from all harm, should I be able to not put my child in a car seat? If you agree with either of those arguments, you really are quite a piece of work, but at least your arguments are consistent. If you disagree, then explain to me why one set of beliefs allow you to violate a particular law and another set of beliefs do not.

        • Katia

          There are some areas and schools in CA with <50% immunized. This 97% is not distributed equally.

        • Justthefacts

          That is not a constitutional argument. That is an argument against passing the law. It didn’t work as a argument against the law. The law passed. NEXT!

    • madcapfeline

      So I fall into the immunocompromised category. Let’s say that you choose a to employ a completely ineffective form of medicine resulting in you or your child contracting something deadly.You then go to the hospital for emergency treatment while I’m there getting my routine treatment; I end up infected with your deadly disease, and ultimately die from it. You’ve inadvertently pushed your form of medicine on me, with fatal consequences.

      Also, take a biology class. I’m too effin’ bored with this topic to get into the specifics of vaccine development and manufacturing, BUT, saying that there are human fetal cells or monkey parts in vaccines is like saying there are ovens in cupcakes. Have you ever had a cupcake with an oven in it? You’ve never had a vaccine with fetal cells in it either.

      • Emma Andie

        Madcapfeline Thank you for your comment. I am sorry that you fall into immune compromised category. I sympathize. Mainstream biotech is constantly using fetal cell lines for research and development. There is a good video regarding this and its alternatives https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jcoESgHTkc&index=90&list=WL. Since, I am pro life I wouldn’t be a “buyer” to those products no matter how long it is “cooked”, however I would consider ones that do not include the use of human trafficking in production. That’s my personal choice. Regarding your scenario where I or my child end up in the hospital with a deadly disease and consequently expose you to it. That would be unfortunate, however any adult walking around today could do the very same thing that our suggesting (according to the CDC, MOST vaccines anti-bodies last between 2-10 years at best, and there is very little research beyond that), as well as recently VACCINATED people (via stool, urine, vomit with in the first 21-30 days of a vaccine with a live virus. See vaccine inserts). In my case, we would do everything we can to avoid the hospital as I am sure you know that hospitals are pretty nasty. Best practice is anyone with an active virus should be quarantined. That is best for everyone. 🙂

    • Rob Crawford

      Great point. I completely agree with you!

      To bad most people give up their liberty for a “sense” of security, which we all know is actually the opposite. The more power we give to the state the worse our society and economy becomes.

    • Justthefacts

      Ah, No vaccines do not contain fetal cells. Sorry. I think that is the end of that legal argument.

  • vaxfactcheckker

    Dorit Reiss…mind reader of The Supreme Court.

    • KAugsburger

      I don’t think you need to be a mind reader to see that the current Supreme Court doesn’t seem very sympathetic to the views of the anti-vaxxers. This isn’t the first case that the appeals courts heard in recent years that the US Supreme Court has refused to hear. Back in 2011 the US Supreme Court refused to hear a similar appeal in the case of Workman vs. Mingo County Schools. In that case the plaintiff attempted to claim that West Virginia’s vaccination law, which is similar to SB 277, infringed upon her religious beliefs. Considering the court has rejected appeals twice in 4 years suggests that the court doesn’t seem to see any need to revise the current precedents on the subject.

      • Andrew Lazarus

        I don’t the think the antivaxers stand a chance with the Federal Constitution and the US Supreme Court. They are dreaming they can do better than their friends in MS and WV on the basis of the California Constitution, and I don’t expect them to have any better luck, but they aren’t facing quite the devastating precedents they do in a Federal case.

        • thabe331

          It just makes me think of 9/11 truthers trying to argue their case in a courtroom and getting shut down.

      • thabe331

        It’s kind of like the chemtrails nuts. When even Greenpeace disagrees, it’s a bad sign for them.

  • Troy Larson

    I am prepared to homeschool. This will be devastating for many schools. Not only will they lose students and the funds that come with them, they will also lose some of the biggest fund raisers. Oh well, home school gets bigger and better by the day. Mandating medical procedures is slippery slope. Big Pharm won’t be happy until the entire country is their paying lab rats. For those of you thinking there is no damage caused by vaccines here is just one law firm and their cases. They just won 61 million in one case alone. http://www.mctlawyers.com/vaccine-injury/cases/

    • Brooke Dunne

      Ooh. A personal injury law firm whose entire business is no-fault vaccine claims. Now there’s an authoritative source.

      If every family that signed the referendum chooses to homeschool, the public schools will lose at most 1% of enrollment.

      Devastating? Hardly.

    • Katia

      Ha! I bet it’s your wife that will be doing the actual “homeschooling” while you’re away from the home at your job.

    • bpatient

      That law firm gets paid whether or not they win a case and whether or not the cases they represent have merit. The 61 million dollar award that “they just won” was distributed about four and one-half years ago, apparently for an automatic vaccine table injury.

      That’s a good thing. The system (designed with input from Barbara Loe Fisher) is intended as a no-fault means to help those who might have been injured by vaccines. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be anyone to sue if your child dies or is injured by a vaccine-preventable disease, which might be worth considering since the death rate from measles virus infection here in the US during the last large outbreak (ca. 1990) was over one hundred times the total risk of all adverse events associated with receipt of MMR.

      • thabe331

        I hope his kids can get away from his loony house when they turn 18.

    • Justthefacts

      The average exemption rate in California was about 2%. How many will home school? 1%? Less? Somewhere less than 1 in 100 students?
      .
      I don’t think anyone will miss you or your special snowflake. Neither will the colleges they won’t get into.

  • Troy Larson

    Some schools have much higher rates. That was the entire point of the legislation, right? That’s why I said some schools. Ours is 15% and I know the other parents. Our school will lose a ton money. We are the biggest fund raisers as well.
    The very fact that the vaccine industry had to subvert the entire judicial process by creating a special vaccine court to privatize profits and socialize liability because of the massive amount of damage being caused by vaccines is all anyone really needs to know about this subject. That law firm won those cases even with the wolf watching the chicken pen. Yea, that’s beyond credible.

    • Brooke Dunne

      Barbara Loe Fisher, an antivaxer to the core. helped set up that special vaccine court.

      The law firm specializes in those cases because the system is set up where no causality needs to be shown and the burden of proof is exceedingly low. It’s easy money.

      Perhaps before lecturing others on what they really need to know, you might consider educating yourself.

      • I watched that, great piece by Frontline. I was really stunned at the ignorance of what happened in the past before vaccines. We’ve been able to irradiate some deadly diseases.

  • Terall Weideman

    we are the most vaccinated industrialized country in the world yet we have the highest rate of chronic illness amongst our children. we also have the highest infant mortality rate….. but damn those pesky facts.

    • Katia

      Prove your “pesky facts”, with cites from peer-reviewed sources. Heck, some of your fellow AVs like to tell us that China has a 99% immunization rate. While I really don’t believe that’s true, it’s much higher than the US’.

    • Frankie D.

      Oh, are you talking about that infant mortality chart that has all the countries above america cut off? Yeah, that’s how the anti vaxxers deal with “pesky facts”…

    • dimensio

      Infant mortality rate of the United States of America: 5.87 deaths per 1,000 births.
      Infant mortality rate of China: 12.44.
      Infant mortality rate of Greenland: 9.23.

      Your statement appears to be contradicted by observable reality. Are you able to explain this apparent discrepancy?

    • Brian

      There a word for what you just did there… it’s called lying.

    • Justthefacts

      Nope, Over 100 countries have equal or higher vaccination rates. About the same number have higher illness and death rates than the U.S.. Stop getting your information from anti-vaxx websites.

  • Mansour Alihosseini

    If vaccines were good enough it was not necessary to mandate it Period.

    • Brian

      Vaccines shouldn’t have to be mandatory, but the dangerous actions of anti-vaccine activists necessitate it.

      In an ironic and indirect sort of way, sb277 was passed precisely because of anti-vaxxers.

    • Katia

      That’s an “arugmentum by circular logic”. The Libertarians say people should get vaccinated b/c it’s the right thing to do. I agree, but some are too stupid to do the right thing.

  • Rob Crawford

    The entire argument is disgusting.
    Give more power to the state and now complete power over physical well being of the individual, for what? to protect other kids against diseases?
    That argument is patently false, if you child was vaccinated than what harm could an unvaccinated individual have to them? in fact, it would be the other way around. The parents with unvaccinated children would be concerned but either way it’s truly disgusting that a major portion of the population believe that a gang (the government) can enforce their will on others.

    • Andrew Lazarus

      I really wonder how antivaxers think Nobel-winning scientists, plus ordinary doctors and other educated people, somehow overlooked the possibility that unvaccinated kids could not harm vaccinated kids. Similar: Creationists who think scientists don’t understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

      To answer your question: vaccines sometimes fail, babies are too young, people have chemo or other immunosuppressant modalities, etc. So indeed your unvaccinated snowflake endangers everyone else. But even if this were not the case, why are you entitled to free ride on your neighbors’ responsible behavior that makes it unlikely you will be challenged by measles (and even more so polio and smallpox)?

      The purpose of government is to enforce its will on others. I like the fact they enforce a rule that restaurant workers wash their hands after using the bathroom. You?

    • cable1977

      “The parents with unvaccinated children would be concerned but either way
      it’s truly disgusting that a major portion of the population believe
      that a gang (the government) can enforce their will on others.”

      Ummm…what do you think laws are? Laws are the government enforcing it’s will on it’s citizens. When a law demands that a child be in a car seat, that is the government enforcing it’s will on it’s citizens. I’m curious, would you also rant against seat belt laws? How about health code laws in restaurants?

      What is really disgusting to me is the rampant intellectual dishonesty and true lack of critical thinking that people like yourself demonstrate.

    • Robert Foster

      Give more power to the state and now complete power over physical well being of the individual, for what? Because some folks are too stupid to take care of their own children. Like yourself.

      if you child was vaccinated than what harm could an unvaccinated individual have to them? This trope is so fecking boring. Unlike you deluded freaks, we prefer to keep all all kids alive and healthy. We also care about those who cannot be vaccinated (the very old, very young, and the immunocompromised).

      it’s truly disgusting that a major portion of the population believe that a gang (the government) can enforce their will on others. Before i address the irony of this brainless quote, allow me to remind you that the government always enforces their will on you. Examples follow. If you: drive without a licence, don’t pay your taxes, refuse to serve jury duty, don’t wear your seat belt, do crack, rape, murder, don’t sign up for the draft, and a metric feckton of other things, you will be fined, lose your freedom, or both.

      As to the irony: it is breathtakingly hilarious that you’re whining about the government forcing you to care for you children, saying “they’re forcing their will on people,” yet idiots like yourself are perfectly happy with pushing deadly diseases on on others. You should see a shrink about that psychopathy,

  • Brian

    Again we see that those quickest to criticize vaccination are the quickest to prove their ignorance of it.

  • wetset

    Two points re this article and Dorit’s comments….first off, the SCOTUS would not hear a case not involving a religious exemption so no case has yet presented itself based solely on the religious issue. Secondly, Dorit neglected to mention that the Jacobsen case also includes this quote ““’All laws’ this court has said, ‘should receive a sensible construction. General terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression, or an absurd consequence. It will always, therefore, be presumed that the legislature intended exceptions to its language which would avoid results of this character. ” A good case can be made that basing the tenets of SB277( or any law that eliminates a person’s refusal to have aborted fetal cell components injected) on the premise of the Jacobsen case is an “absurd consequence.” So THAT case can be used in OUR defense actually. And that case was based on ONE vaccination not the schedule we have now that includes doses of non-contagious diseases. Thirdly, SCOTUS has defined (listen UP Dorit) “religious belief” ….The Supreme Court has held that “religious beliefs” do not need to include a belief in God in the western theological sense of the word. The beliefs only need to be “religious in nature” and “sincerely held.” See, e.g., Sherr and Levy vs. Northport East-Northport Union Free School District, 672 F. Supp. 81, 98 (E.D.N.Y., 1987) (holding that the state “must offer the exemption to all persons who sincerely hold religious beliefs. . .”). So this notion that you have to be part of a religion to exercise a religious objection is false.

    • Brooke Dunne

      Got your JD from Google U? Here, let me help.

      The legal argument against mandatory vaccination
      http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/2015/01/08/the-legal-argument-against-mandatory-vaccination/

      This is the case the U.S. Supreme Court won’t hear, Philips v. City of New York. New York’s mandatory vaccine law does not violate the families’ constitutional due process, equal protection or religious freedom rights, and neither does California’s. It’s black letter law.

    • Katia

      JacobsOn (spelling it right gives you a tad more cred) has been upheld several times, and never overturned. In re: religious exemptions, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that they discriminate against the non-religious. I am not making this up. See:
      Brown v Stone, 1979.

  • BigBuccoFan

    I know my screen name implies I’m from Pennsylvania, but I live in West Virginia. Its a state with mandatory vaccinations. That’s why I feel qualified to discuss this issue in this forum. I also have an MD from University of Pittsburgh and a child with cystic fibrosis and Autism. It puts me in a unique position to discuss the important issues involved in mandatory vaccinations. If you have any questions, feel free to reply to my post things and I will try to get back to you in a timely manner. But my child’s therapies to take extensive time. I apologize if it takes time to get back to you.

    • Brooke Dunne

      Seems legit.

    • Katia

      Hail to Pitt! I went there, too, BSN.

  • Juniper_Sprinkles

    Dorit Reiss is a reknowned pro-vaxxer paid pharma shill. She has her fingers in every pro-vaccine pie she can. She has no medical nor immunologist background whatsoever. How you are giving credible air space to this common troll I will never know.

Author

Lisa Aliferis

Lisa Aliferis is the founding editor of KQED's State of Health blog. Since 2011, she's been writing and editing stories for the site. Before taking up blogging, she toiled for many years (more than we can count) producing health stories for television, including Dateline NBC and San Francisco's CBS affiliate, KPIX-TV. She also wrote up a handy guide to the Affordable Care Act, especially for Californians. Her work has been honored for many awards. Most recently she was a finalist for "Best Topical Reporting" from the Online News Association. You can follow her on Twitter: @laliferis

State of Health Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor