LDS Religious Exemptions from Vaccination

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

I hope that you can see that there actually is a reasonable reason to not vaccinate.  Mandating this vaccine will be a death sentence for some.  We shouldn't take that lightly and should be offered a way to refuse vaccination if we so decide.  

I agree that there are parents who sincerely believe there are reasonable reasons not to vaccinate their kids.  I agree that such parents are not dumb and love their kids very much and are just trying to do what is best for them, just like parents who vaccinate.  

However, the bolded argument above is probably true for every mandated vaccine.  I don't believe that argument in itself is a valid enough reason to put our communities at risk for diseases that can be vaccinated against.  That's why i very much believe in mandated vaccinations for kids going to school.   I completely support parents who do not want to vaccinate their kids and would never be ok with the government forcing parents to vaccinate, but I don't want unvaccinated kids in my kids school unless they can't be vaccinated for medical reasons.  I would also prefer my pediatrician have a separate waiting area and exam rooms for unvaccinated kids.  Doctors already do this for kids who are just in to get a well-child check and are in for sickness and it makes sense to me to extend that division a little further for extra protection.

[waveslider]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I was talking about making sharks sentient not general shark attacks. Imagine how dangerous the next Sharknado would be.

I miss surfing.  

If you ever come visit Oahu, I'll let you use one of my boards.

[waveslider]

31 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Malignant melanoma frequently disappears when treated with immune therapy.

Uh oh, you're talking about the same, "quack," therapies that are talked about in the Quest For The Cures interviews.

[ERMD]

15 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Uh oh, you're talking about the same, "quack," therapies that are talked about in the Quest For The Cures interviews.

Wrong.  Look what happened to Jimmie Carter.  He's the poster boy for immune therapy, and his case is not unique.  

Pembrolizumab is real science, not hocus-pocus.

 

https://www.mskcc.org/blog/understanding-jimmy-carter-s-surprise-turnaround-conversation-jedd-wolchok

[waveslider]

11 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Wrong.  Look what happened to Jimmie Carter.  He's the poster boy for immune therapy, and his case is not unique.  

Pembrolizumab is real science, not hocus-pocus.

 

https://www.mskcc.org/blog/understanding-jimmy-carter-s-surprise-turnaround-conversation-jedd-wolchok

I'm not the one calling it Quack therapy. Everyone else has been calling it that when I have posted a link to a few documentary style interviews with some of the top Oncologists and scientists, as well as survivors from not only the U.S. but from all around the world. Everyone was just writing it of as quack homeopathic stuff before even checking it out. I shouldn't have been so sarcastic when I replied to your post. Sorry for that. I am in agreement with you.

[waveslider]

.

Edited November 11, 2016 by waveslider
Deleted because it was an accidental duplicate

[ERMD]

7 minutes ago, waveslider said:

I'm not the one calling it Quack therapy. Everyone else has been calling it that when I have posted a link to a few documentary style interviews with some of the top Oncologists and scientists, as well as survivors from not only the U.S. but from all around the world. Everyone was just writing it of as quack homeopathic stuff before even checking it out. I shouldn't have been so sarcastic when I replied to your post. Sorry for that. I am in agreement with you.

Understood.  I may have jumped the gun.  I'm semi-passionate about topics like this.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, waveslider said:

If you ever come visit Oahu, I'll let you use one of my boards.

I doubt I have the balance for it anymore but thanks for the offer.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I hope that you can see that there actually is a reasonable reason to not vaccinate.  Mandating this vaccine will be a death sentence for some.  We shouldn't take that lightly and should be offered a way to refuse vaccination if we so decide.  I just wish that we had an easier way to do that than by justifying it based on religious beliefs.

Yes, it will kill some but the problem with allowing refusal is it becomes a "tragedy of the commons" situation. As soon as a disease becomes rare and the odds of getting the disease fall to near the level of risk of vaccination reactions and convince some not to vaccinate then reasonably lots of people will take the option not to vaccinate and the result is the disease resurges and you get a yo-yo effect as it declines and rises with people making rational individual choices. The best way to keep the disease rate down is to vaccinate everyone and the community as a whole is perpetually better off if we do so. In addition it offers increased protection to those few who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.

Being vaccinated is a small risk and I would argue that even if it is the rational choice choosing not to be vaccinated is an immoral decision (absent an angel telling you not to or something of that nature) or at least a selfish one as it leads to an increased possibility of the disease resurging into the population if everyone did it.

[thesometimesaint]

Get vaccinated.

[pogi]

17 hours ago, ERMD said:

P value?

P value???

[pogi]

17 hours ago, ERMD said:

CFR

Hearken back to your microbiology days, that fact was drilled into my head in microbiology.    I don't have my text book any more to use as a reference but the children's hospital of Philadelphia will corroborate my point:

Quote

It is true that natural infection almost always causes better immunity than vaccines.

http://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/immune-system-and-health

[pogi]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

However, the bolded argument above is probably true for every mandated vaccine.  I don't believe that argument in itself is a valid enough reason to put our communities at risk for diseases that can be vaccinated against.  

This gets to the main issue I want to discuss.  There is a real ethical dilemma here.  Here is the dilemma - when the risk for death and serious adverse events are actually greater than the risk for disease, is it ethical to mandate such a vaccine?  Is the public health really better served if more kids are dying or having more serious adverse events to the vaccine than from the disease itself?  Is it ethical to mandate that my child be put at risk for serious harm or death in order to protect your child from having a relatively mild illness for a few days (we are not talking about the bubonic plague here)?  When the risk for serious adverse reactions and death are greater than the risk of serious harm from disease, mandating vaccination would be like mandating that my child have a shotgun instead of a BB gun, because BB guns are dangerous.  

Keep in mind, millions of rotavirus vaccines are administered annually.  A 1/20,000-100,00 risk for having a serious adverse event (life-threatening reaction, death, or permanent disability) may seem like a small risk for one person, but nationwide, we are talking about potentially hundreds of victims.  Is it worth it really?  Mother's are burying their children needlessly.  That to me doesn't seem right.  Even more, it doesn't seem right that the government should be making that choice for me.  The government mandating vaccination is like practicing medicine without a license, not to mention it completely violates the medical ethic of informed consent and the Hippocratic oath of "first do no harm". 

Edited November 11, 2016 by pogi

[pogi]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, it will kill some but the problem with allowing refusal is it becomes a "tragedy of the commons" situation. As soon as a disease becomes rare and the odds of getting the disease fall to near the level of risk of vaccination reactions and convince some not to vaccinate then reasonably lots of people will take the option not to vaccinate and the result is the disease resurges and you get a yo-yo effect as it declines and rises with people making rational individual choices. The best way to keep the disease rate down is to vaccinate everyone and the community as a whole is perpetually better off if we do so. In addition it offers increased protection to those few who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.

Being vaccinated is a small risk and I would argue that even if it is the rational choice choosing not to be vaccinated is an immoral decision (absent an angel telling you not to or something of that nature) or at least a selfish one as it leads to an increased possibility of the disease resurging into the population if everyone did it.

Fair points!

I would argue though, why is keeping rotavirus disease rates down better than keeping death, life-threading reactions, and permanent disability rates down? I would argue that mandating that my child take those risks to protect your child is the "immoral" decision.

Mandates or not, vaccination rates in the US will remain high, especially for the more serious and communicable infectious disease.  Diseases rates might go up some, but primarily among the unvaccinated (that is the risk they choose to take).  That is the balance, as disease rates go up, adverse event rates go down and vise versa.  I want to decide which risk I want to take and not allow the government to make that decision for me. 

How is it ethical or right to allow an HIV positive child to attend public school, but block my child from attending public school if we refuses a Hep B shot?  Especially when my child is healthy and has less than a 0.00002% chance of ever becoming infected.  The chances of my child becoming infected and in turn infecting your child at school would be infinitely small. I have serious problems with that scenario. 

I have more points, but will have to make them later.

Edited November 11, 2016 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

Ever hear of herd immunity?

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

How is it ethical or right to allow an HIV positive child to attend public school, but block my child from attending public school if we refuses a Hep B shot?  Especially when my child is healthy and has less than a 0.00002% chance of ever becoming infected.  The chances of my child becoming infected and in turn infecting your child at school would be infinitely small. I have serious problems with that scenario. 

Because presumably the HIV child is not refusing treatment that would make them less dangerous to other children. It is true that the risk is small but if many people refuse the vaccine the percentages quickly rise.

[thesometimesaint]

Every medicine/treatment/surgery has the potential to kill. We don't stop doing medicine just because of it. A given number of people will die due to taking aspirin every year. It is still a medical marvel drug.

[pogi]

11 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Ever hear of herd immunity?

Yep

[pogi]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Because presumably the HIV child is not refusing treatment that would make them less dangerous to other children. It is true that the risk is small but if many people refuse the vaccine the percentages quickly rise.

First, I think we need to dispel the myth that removing the mandate will cause a significant drop in vaccination rates.  In the states that allow for personal or philosophical exemptions, the vaccination rates remain close to national averages.  It is an unreasonable fear to think that removing mandates for hep b vaccine will cause "quick" rises in disease rates for hep b among children.  It simply will not happen.  If you are worried about your child contracting hep b at school, get your kid vaccinated.  Vaccination will give them greater than 90% protection.  Even without vaccination, the chances of your child becoming infected are 0.00002% (mostly from mother to child transmission through child birth), with vaccination, the chances would drop another 90+% from that already near zero chance.    

Here is the ironic part, healthy children who refuse hep b shots are blocked from school because they are "dangerous to other children", while infected children with hep b are allowed to attend school.  That is messed up!

Edited November 13, 2016 by pogi

[pogi]

7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Every medicine/treatment/surgery has the potential to kill. We don't stop doing medicine just because of it. A given number of people will die due to taking aspirin every year. It is still a medical marvel drug.

You are right, we educate the patient regarding the potential benefit/risks and let them make an informed consent.  There is nothing wrong with that. However, the medical ethic of informed consent is being violated in regards to vaccination.  That is what happens when we let the government play doctor. 

Edited November 12, 2016 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

22 hours ago, pogi said:

Yep

Please explain how it works.

 

16 hours ago, pogi said:

You are right, we educate the patient regarding the potential benefit/risks and let them make an informed consent.  There is nothing wrong with that. However, the medical ethic of informed consent is being violated in regards to vaccination.  That is what happens when we let the government play doctor. 

It is simple you don't have the right to infect other people against their will. The government has an affirmative responsibility to protect its citizens against disease.

[Duncan]

This came up today actually. There is this strange guy in our ward and his son is going to Portugal on a mission in the spring. The papers say he is supposed to be vaccinated for things and to get that done prior to the mission. Well, this dad doesn't want it done and he told me that God will protect him and I said well, Pres. Hinckley gave training at one of those worldwide training broadcasts years ago now he said something like "it just doesn't work that way" If you can protect your kid why wouldn't you? So, I mean I don't know what will happen but I wish them well, if he doesn't actually get vaccinated.

"Many believe that God will provide, but we cannot sit idly by and expect to get results. The Lord requires us to work for that which we seek. If we do our part and exercise faith, then we are promised he will help us in all our righteous undertakings. However, if we do not do our part, how can we expect the help of our Heavenly Father? Our late President David O. McKay said, “The rich rewards come only to the strenuous strugglers.” Elder O. Leslie Stone, April 1973 GC

Edited November 14, 2016 by Duncan

[Yirgacheffe]

4 hours ago, Duncan said:

Well, this dad doesn't want it done and

Will the church send the young man if he refuses to be immunized?  And does the father get to say whether or not his 18 year old young man will be vaccinated or does he get to make that medical decision himself?

[Calm]

I suspect the young man has the right to make that decision himself and I doubt the Church will send him or the country willlet him in without them.

[Calm]

"Immunizations are not a requirement for missionary service, but those who decline or are unable to receive immunizations will serve in their home countries where their risk for contracting and transmitting the illness is not increased. Vaccines must be approved by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in the United States or by an approved government agency internationally. Some vaccines contain live viruses and certain precautions apply. MMR, chickenpox, influenza by nasal spray, yellow fever, and shingles vaccines contain live viruses. They must be given on the same day, or separated by 28 days before another live virus vaccine can be given. For example, one could receive MMR, chickenpox and influenza vaccines on day 1, but would have to wait 28 days before receiving yellow fever. Each missionary should complete their immunizations BEFORE entering the MTC."

http://www.immunize-utah.org/information for the public/immunization recommendations/missionaries.html