Browsed by
Tag: medical exemptions

SB 276 gets Amended, but still knocks-out current medical exemptions, and fragile children won’t qualify for future exemption

SB 276 gets Amended, but still knocks-out current medical exemptions, and fragile children won’t qualify for future exemption

On April 30, 2019, SB 276 was slightly amended.

Here is the link to the amended bill.

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB276

Here is the short of it:

1. Precautions are added to contraindications: The amended bill adds the following language after contraindications: “or that a specific precaution regarding a particular immunization exists. . . . “

What practical effect will that have on those with current medical exemptions or parent of medical fragile children?

I’d say none. Neither the CDC, AAP, AAFP or vaccine package inserts (from which precautions are taken) recognize the concept of medical fragility. And more importantly, it’s just a vaccine-by-vaccine determination. Basically, the conventional standard of care doesn’t recognize the concept of an exemption from all vaccines for all of childhood for healthy children. That’s something that only exists in the world of the vaccine concerned and the physicians who subscribe that this minority medical view.

2. Delay of filing of current medical exemptions:

The time for current exemptions to be filed has moved from July 1, 2020, to either December 31, 2020, (based on the change to the text of the statute) or December 31, 2021 (based on the legislative counsel’s digest) 1. So basically, if you currently have a vaccine exemption, it will be good for the first part of the 2020-2021 school year (or 2021-2022 school year based on the legislative counsel’s digest), and for many, much or all of it, because it may take some time for the public health authorities to reject them. (They’ll catch the inconsistency at some point and correct it.)

3. Parent filed medical exemption requests?

Here is the new language in the bill:

“The bill would require the department, in consultation with local educational agencies and local public health officers, to develop a process for a parent or guardian to request a medical exemption and the department to approve or deny the request and communicate its decision to the school district and the parent or guardian, as specified.”

Looks to me like the bill gives parents the ability to cut-out the physician from the exemption applying process.
I’m fine with that, but the only real practical benefit to the families is that they won’t have to pay a physician to have their exemption request denied.

4. Administrative review process:

The revised bill contains the following additions:

“(3) The denial of a request for a medical exemption may be appealed to the State Public Health Officer.
(4) For purposes of filing an appeal, the physician and surgeon may submit additional information to the department within 30 days from the notification for further review by the State Public Health Officer or designee.”

So there will be some sort of review process. I take from this addition that the plan is to have local public health officials make the initial determination (read rejection of the exemption request) and then someone from the state health department will handle the appeal (read rubber-stamp the exemption rejection, but even rubber-stamping is expensive, when done by governments).

And my friends, that’s the most interesting part of the bill. I’ll explain why very soon. You’ll want to pay attention.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.
rickjaffeesquire@gmail.com

Memo to Cali. Parents of Currently Vaccine Medically Exempt Children: What happens if SB 276 becomes law?

Memo to Cali. Parents of Currently Vaccine Medically Exempt Children: What happens if SB 276 becomes law?

By now, all Cali. Vaccine Concerned (“VC”) know that earlier this week, Senator Richard Pan dropped the bill he’s been hinting about for some time. His SB 276 will eliminate the power of physicians to issue vaccine medical exemptions. Instead, doctors will submit form applications/requests for exemptions which will be reviewed and approved or denied by unspecified state health officials.

Even more significant, but unsurprising is SB 276’s stated standard for which medical exemption applications will be reviewed: CDC contraindications, period, but GULP!

Before I continue, let’s have alittle perspective: This is just the first cut/draft of the bill. Like with SB 277, the legislative process may result in changes which could make the bill less – let’s just say – terminal to the hopes of the VC. Of course, the elimination of the contraindication exemption from SB 277 directly resulted in what Senator Pan believes are all these unjustified/fraudulent exemptions. So, expect him to be more recalcitrant this go around. But perhaps the same pressures which forced the elimination of the contraindications standard in SB 277 will surface again. Early signs are good. Senator Ben Allen (SB 277 co-sponsor) has stated he’s going to honor his SB 277 commitment to maintain a robust exemption option, and so for now (under the current version) he’s not with Senator Pan.

Still the situation for the Cali VC and especially the families with current complete medical exemptions is dire and alarming.

That’s because of the retroactive effect that SB 276’s contraindication standard will have on already issued permanent medical exemptions.

The retroactive effect is effectuated by the bill’s requiring all current vaccine exemptees to submit their exemptions to the DOH by July 1, 2020 and those exemptions will be reviewed a state or local public health official.

Here is the operative language of this part of the bill:

“2) If a medical exemption has been authorized pursuant to Section 120370 prior to the adoption of the statewide standardized form, the parent or guardian shall submit, by July 1, 2020, a copy of that medical exemption to the department for inclusion in the database in order for the medical exemption to remain valid.
(d) If the State Public Health Officer or a local public health officer determines that a medical exemption submitted to the department is fraudulent or inconsistent with applicable CDC guidelines, the State Public Health Officer or local public health officer may revoke the medical exemption.”

Ok, so it all comes down to whether a current medical exemption is inconsistent with applicable CDC guidelines.

Here is my bottom-line opinion on this:

There are no (or virtually no) currently issued medical vaccine exemptions for all vaccines throughout the duration of children which are consistent with CDC vaccine contraindications.

In fact, if the standard is CDC contraindications, I think the Department of Health could take the position that all of the permanent, all-inclusive vaccine exemptions are defective of their face for two reasons.

First, contraindications are vaccine or multi-vaccine shot specific and the contraindications differ (I’ll show you the contraindications in three of the basic vaccines in a bit). I suspect the state-approved form is going to list each vaccine/shot separately and ask the physician to note the contraindication to each vaccine. If a current exemption doesn’t do that, then without more, I’d say the exemption is not consistent with the CDC standards.

Second, for reasons I don’t want to publically explain, I’ve seen what I expect to be the academic infectious disease pediatrician view on this, and I believe these academics will take the position that there is no medical condition or family history which would justify an exemption from all vaccines throughout childhood. I don’t even think that’s surprising since even mega activist Barbara Loe Fisher has said about the same thing.

So, for all practical purposes, if you have a healthy child and you have a permanent all-inclusive vaccine exemption from a VC physician (and frankly, only VC physicians write permanent all-inclusive exemptions, because the concept/practice doesn’t exist with the majority of pediatrians), once the health officials review it, it will most likely be revoked.

What happens if that happens?

It’s unclear from the bill. For new exemption requests which are rejected, the physician has 30 days to submit additional information supporting the exemption request. But I don’t see a similar provision for review of existing exemptions, at least under the current bill. My guess is that they’ll go with the most administratively efficient solution which is that in the revocation notice, the parents will be informed of their right to reapply with the current form and show why each of the vaccines from which they wanted to be exempted is justified under each vaccine’s contraindications.

If I’m right, none (or almost none) of the prior permanent exemptions for all vaccines will be approved by the officials (unless your child is so immunocompromised that he/she lives in a bubble, and of course I’m not talking about temporarily immunocompromised kids, like say kids undergoing cancer chemotherapy).

Let’s look at a couple of specifics, and we’ll start with MMR because of the recent hullabaloo.

HERE IS THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE CDC:

“Some people should not get MMR vaccine or should wait.
Tell your vaccine provider if the person getting the vaccine:
• Has any severe, life-threatening allergies. A person who has ever had a life-threatening allergic reaction after a dose of MMR vaccine, or has a severe allergy to any part of this vaccine, may be advised not to be vaccinated. Ask your health care provider if you want information about vaccine components.
• Is pregnant, or thinks she might be pregnant. Pregnant women should wait to get MMR vaccine until after they are no longer pregnant. Women should avoid getting pregnant for at least 1 month after getting MMR vaccine.
• Has a weakened immune system due to disease (such as cancer or HIV/AIDS) or medical treatments (such as radiation, immunotherapy, steroids, or chemotherapy).
• Has a parent, brother, or sister with a history of immune system problems.
• Has ever had a condition that makes them bruise or bleed easily.
• Has recently had a blood transfusion or received other blood products. You might be advised to postpone MMR vaccination for 3 months or more.
• Has tuberculosis.
• Has gotten any other vaccines in the past 4 weeks. Live vaccines given too close together might not work as well.
• Is not feeling well. A mild illness, such as a cold, is usually not a reason to postpone a vaccination. Someone who is moderately or severely ill should probably wait. Your doctor can advise you.
This information was taken directly from the MMR VIS”
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/should-not-vacc.html”

That seems pretty straightforward, but there’s some wiggle room in terms of what kind of first degree relative autoimmune issue might qualify.

Here are the Lord’s words on DPTa:

“Some children should not get DTaP vaccine or should wait.
DTaP is only for children younger than 7 years old. DTaP vaccine is not appropriate for everyone – a small number of children should receive a different vaccine that contains only diphtheria and tetanus instead of DTaP.
Tell your health care provider if your child:
• Has had an allergic reaction after a previous dose of DTaP, or has any severe, life-threatening allergies.
• Has had a coma or long repeated seizures within 7 days after a dose of DTaP.
• Has seizures or another nervous system problem.
• Has had a condition called Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS).
• Has had severe pain or swelling after a previous dose of DTaP or DT vaccine.
In some cases, your health care provider may decide to postpone your child’s DTaP vaccination to a future visit.
Children with minor illnesses, such as a cold, may be vaccinated. Children who are moderately or severely ill should usually wait until they recover before getting DTaP vaccine.
Your health care provider can give you more information.
This information was taken directly from the DTaP VIS”

And Jesus/Moses/Mohammed spoke onto the flock about HIB contraindications as follows: (and some of this nonsense seems about as current)

“Some people should not get this vaccine.
Hib vaccine should not be given to infants younger than 6 weeks of age.
A person who has ever had a life-threatening allergic reaction after a previous dose of Hib vaccine, OR has a severe allergy to any part of this vaccine, should not get Hib vaccine. Tell the person giving the vaccine about any severe allergies.
People who are mildly ill can get Hib vaccine. People who are moderately or severely ill should probably wait until they recover. Talk to your healthcare provider if the person getting the vaccine isn’t feeling well on the day the shot is scheduled.
This information was taken directly from the Hib VIS”

OK, so do you want to know for sure if you child’s current complete medical exemption will be continued by the state or local health officials?

Then go through all the childhood vaccines and see whether he/she fits a contraindication for every single vaccine. Per previous, I think that no otherwise healthy child is going to get there.

What about a complicated medical history? Easy, if it’s in the contraindication for a specific vaccine, you get it (for that vaccine). If not, you don’t.

And that’s the same basic response to any question you might have about your child’s particular medical issue or family history. (See my comment later on about dirt.)

Here is the CDC URL.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/should-not-vacc.html

But let’s circle back to the beginning

Right now, SB 276 is just a first iteration of a bill. Bills get changed in the law making process, and bills get killed, even vaccine bills, as we’ve seen recently in Washington. And it’s much easier to kill a bill than pass one.

There are many reasons this bill should die, not the least of which is because it takes medical decision making out of the hands of physicians, which seems like not only a bad thing, but something which even the Medical Board of California and the California Medical Association shouldn’t be happy about.

It also reduces a critical decision about a child’s future health and safety to contraindication statements which in many cases are several decades old, and frozen in time without any consideration of what has been learned in the last decade or two, and without consideration of new emerging technologies.

The notion that an army of state or local health officials are going to make these vital and potentially life altering medical decision, seems stupid as dirt, but maybe that’s an insult to dirt.

Still, we live in a democracy, and the way it works is that you mount an effective legislative campaign, enlist as many allies as you can, work as hard as you can, and hope for the best.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.
Rickjaffeesquire@gmail.com

A post with two titles: The dissenting opinion everyone interested in the vaccine issue should read/ The Strongest Argument against Cali SB 276

A post with two titles: The dissenting opinion everyone interested in the vaccine issue should read/ The Strongest Argument against Cali SB 276

In late January 2019, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Newman issued a dissenting opinion which everyone interested in the vaccine issue should read and study. The Court of Appeals had affirmed the vaccine court’s denial of compensation to an alleged vaccine injured child on the stated grounds that the child’s injury was a result of a genetically confirmed pre-existing condition. The family moved for rehearing and en banc rehearing, which was denied, but Judge Newman wrote a dissenting opinion which was joined by one other judge. The case is Oliver v. HHS. For reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion of Judge Newman, it seems like the majority got it wrong. But that’s not why the opinion is really significant.

At the recent PIC seminar and in a recent post, I told the vaccine concerned to stop saying the Supreme Court said that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe, because it didn’t.

Here is the post where I explained what the Supreme Court actually said.
http://rickjaffeesq.com/2019/02/16/to-my-vaccine-concerned-friends-stop-saying-that-the-supreme-court-decided-that-vaccines-are-unavoidably-unsafe-it-didnt/

I pointed out in my PIC talk that there was plenty of powerful true things from official sources which could be used to show what you need to show, and referenced a portion of Judge Newman’s dissent in Oliver. Here it is (but you won’t like the beginning of the quote).

“The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986
It had long been known that a small percentage of childhood vaccinations have led to grave injury and permanent disability, as discussed in the legislative record:

Childhood vaccines are essential to maintain the health of our society. They have been invaluable weapons against the dread diseases that used to kill or injure hundreds of thousands of children every year: polio, measles, pertussis, diphtheria, tetanus, rubella, mumps, and smallpox. But while these vaccines have brought the gift of life and health to millions, there are a very small number of children every year who are injured by unpredictable side effects of the vaccines through no fault of their own or the vaccine manufacturers.
132 Cong. Rec. S17,343–02 (1986) (statement of Sen. Kennedy). The House Report reiterated the concern for unforeseeable injury flowing from compulsory vaccinations:
While most of the Nation’s children enjoy greater benefit from immunization programs, a small but significant number have been gravely injured. . . . . ..
But it is not always possible to predict who they will be or what reactions they will have. And since State law requires that all children be immunized before entering school, most parents have no choice but to risk the chance—small as that may be—that their child may be injured from a vaccine.
H.R. Rep. No. 99-908, at 4–6 (1986), as reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6344, 6345–46.
The legislative record states that about one half of one percent of children each year experience vaccine-related injury;1 and with four million births each year in the United States, this is about 20,000 vaccine injuries per year.2

Footnote 1: To Amend the Public Health Service Act to Provide for the Compensation of Children and Others Who Have Sustained Vaccine-Related Injury, and for Other Purposes: Hearing on S. 2117 Before the Comm. on Labor & Human Res., 98th Cong. 21 (1984) (“S. Hrg. 98-1060”).”
Footnote 2: Joyce A. Martin et al., Births: Final Data for 2017, 67 National Vital Statistics Reports 1, 3 (2018), https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr67/nvsr67_08- 508.pdf.”
(emphasis added)

So according to Judge Newman, back in 1983 Congress acknowledged that 20,000 kids would suffer grave injury and permanent disability from vaccines.
(So, folks, stop misquoting the Supreme Court about “unavoidable injury” and start accurately quoting Congress, reaffirmed two months ago by two federal appellate court judges instead.)

In the mid 80’s, kids got somewhere between seven to ten vaccines (and I’ve seen numbers as high as 20 or so shots including boosters.) Now kids are given around 72 shots of about 20 plus different vaccines, or so I read.

Does anyone other than Paul Offit think that giving 3 to 10 times the number of vaccines or separate vaccine shots to kids wouldn’t increase the number of children gravely injured and permanently disabled by vaccines? (I suppose that’s a rhetorical question, because the answer is that most of the vaccine mafia would probably agree with Offit and his view that an infant/child’s immune system is robust enough to handle even 10,000 vaccines).

Assuming just a linear increase, that would make the number of gravely vaccine injured, permanently disabled children around 70,000, per year (3 and a half times the old injury numbers). Maybe it’s less, but maybe it’s a lot more (and there might be some indication that it is a lot more based on what I understand to be the dramatic increase in autoimmune disease since in the last 30 to 40 years). But’s let’s just consider a linear increase to 70,000.

Here is some perspective

In 2018, 70,000 people died of opioid overdose, and that is called an epidemic and a crisis. So, if my relatively conservative speculation of the current annual number of vaccine gravely injured and permanently disabled children is in the ball park, why isn’t that a public crises?

I suppose the answer is obvious and right in the language quoted by Judge Newman because as Congress acknowledged back in 1983 “Childhood vaccines are essential to maintain the health of our society.”

But that raises the question: if 70,000 is the cost of maintaining the health of our society, is there some higher number where the cost would be considered unacceptable? No one in authority is going to answer that question. Instead, there is the mantra that vaccines are safe and effective and side effects are rare.

Nonetheless, I think it’s a question which should be asked, and repeatedly asked since back in the days when there was an arguably reasonable vaccination schedule, Congress itself acknowledged the grave injury and permanent disability of 20,000 children caused by just a relatively few vaccines given during childhood.

The other critically important thing about Judge Newman’s dissent

Actually, I’d say the most important part of the dissent is Judge Newman’s discussion of the new vaccine paradigm called adversomics/vacinomics/personal vaccinology. It may be the first or one of the first and most significant judicial recognition of this emerging vaccine paradigm.

From past posts, you’re probably getting that I think the only way the legal status quo and continued attacks on the vaccine concerned abates or changes is by a change from the last century’s,(but still accepted) one-size-fits-all vaccine paradigm. Judge Newman’s dissent is a very important starting point for the acceptance of the shift to personal vaccine determinations based on family history and genetic testing. Regrettably, the state of genetic testing in terms of vaccine risk assessment is still in the crude beginning stages. But……….

Let’s look at the conceptual intersection between the Congressionally admitted vaccine induced gravely injured and permanently disabled, and personal vaccinology, through the lens of “Childhood vaccines are essential to maintain the health of our society.” Hold those three ideas together in your head, shake them up and what do you get?

Honestly, I don’t see an end to mandatory vaccinations coming from this mix, nor do I see a right to a personal belief exemption.

But what I do see a need for families with a strong history of vaccine reactions or autoimmune disease to obtain as much information as they can about their child’s personal vaccine risk assessment, and make a risk/benefit assessment based on the best available evidence, and that would involve whatever genetic testing is available, mindful of its current limitations.

And that means a robust medical exemption option based on a doctor/patient interaction and analysis based on the best and most current tools available.

Vaccines may be necessary to protect the “public,” but Judge Newman’s dissent makes clear that the Government has known for decades that children will be gravely injured and permanently disabled by vaccines. We now have more injured children, but we also have a somewhat better understanding of which kids might be at greater. The idea that a vaccine exemption based on these tools and new information could be overturned by a government employee (who may or may not be a physician) using last Century’s analytical concepts seems to me to be a profound and unconscionable disserve to the future injured and their families who might have been saved by robust medical exemption process.

Here is the judge Newman’s opinion.
Decision – 2019 – oliver – scn1a – dissent in fed cir – 17-2540.Order.1-9-2019.1

This post and Judge Newman’s opinion is as good as I’ve got about why SB 276 (and the pending Oregon bill) should be rejected.

Good luck!

Rick Jaffe, Esq.
rickjaffeesquire@gmail.com