• The purpose of this bill is to curb power used by the DHHS. So we do not expect DHHS to agree with this bill.


• DHHS currently imposes their will upon parents and daycare operators. This bill seeks to remove an unreasonable portion of their restriction.


• Mainstream vaccine authority who admits that unvaccinated children can be exposed to disease without having symptoms. That is natural immunity. Support for HB 465 can be based on "acceptible mainstream" information.


• The offical prevaccine figures for incidence give a general clue to natural immunity and susceptibility.

Prevaccine summary:
  * Only 6 in 100,000 children susceptible to Hepatitis B.
  * Diphtheria in countries not using any vaccination virtually declined to near zero incidence.
  * Tetanus not contagious. Prevaccine incidence had declined to 1 per 250,000 population.
  * Pertusis (Whooping Cough) was declining at time of vaccine introduction and incidence was about 1 to 1.5 percent of children then and naturally lower now in the unvaccinated.
  * Hib: 1985 prevaccine incidence was 1 in 200 children. Etc through the other diseases for which vaccines exist. Longer summary.


• Fourtyeight states find it acceptable to send religious exempted children to day care.


• Vaccination is NOT the will of the majority. (See majority.)


• This bill will make more employment possible for day care centers willing to accept unvaccinated children and there are a few people who will chose to accept all unvaccinated children.


• No legal basis exists for discriminating between medically and religiously exempted children.
  The essential difference between medical exemption and religious exemption is who makes the decision. The numbers are similar and are likely to remain about the same through the next several years. Medically exempted children allowed by DHHS are safe in day care, thus religious exempted children are safe as well. (For Montana, with 1.1 % total exempted children, I estimate that medical exemptions are 1 in 200 children (.5%), and religious exemptions are 1 in 167 children (.6%).)


• One of the reasons that states allow both types of exemptions (medical & religious) is so that when a child is damaged by vaccines, the state has an out by stating that vaccines are "voluntary".

Two ideas in opposition to HB465 are being circulated:

• One, a familiar misconception that "unvaccinated means NO immunity"
• and secondly, as a consequence of one - that HB465 restricts the choice of parents.

The idea that unvaccinated means unimmunized was current some years ago as a vaccine sales concept and is still held by many people.

However, it has become apparent even to a top mainstream vaccine text book writer (I.E. Paul Offit) that unvaccinated babies have powerful immune systems and that exposing a group of unvaccinated individuals to a virus will affect only a small percentage of the group. It is known that most unvaccinated individuals respond to exposure to disease with no symptoms. Two hundred years of epidemiology, the statistics of disease incidence, supports these observations.

Unvaccinated individuals have high degrees of immunity. Sometimes in excess of 99% natural and safe effective immunity. This statement applies particularly to children who live with both good environmental conditions and nutrition and has little to do with the controversy about whether or not vaccines help immunize the minority of one or two percent of children who do not possess safe natural immunity. However, natural immunity and disease incidence statistics must be understood in order to know where the vaccine controversy lies.

The DHHS currently makes choices for parents though DHHS rules. DHHS rules must change in order to give a broader choice to parents.

Every time a parent puts a child in daycare or any other public setting the parent makes a choice to place their child at some small risk.

What is the risk profile of placing a child with children who receive live virus vaccines? Yes, vaccinated children do put other children at risk.

I have looked, but not found any scientific study that sought to answer if the risk profile of placing a child with vaccinated children who receive live virus vaccines is any different than the risk profile for placing a child with children receiving no vaccines. Forty-eight other states find both risk profiles acceptable for day care. Montana should also find the two risk profiles comparable.

Give parents, not DHHS, the choice to make for their children's day care.

Proponents of mandatory vaccination often cite the idea that vaccination is the will of the majority. However, this is not so. Take a brief look at history.

1800's England
Vaccination was introduced about 1800 and was made mandatory in England in 1853 because the majority of people believed the practice to be ineffective and dangerous. In some areas as much as 90 percent of the population avoided vaccination. In fact, after suffering greatly in a smallpox epidemic the city of Leicester rejected vaccination in favor of sanitation. Only 5% of the children in the next two decades were vaccinated. This constituted a 95% rejection of vaccination. Leicester became the city with the least number of smallpox cases in England.

USA
Circa 1920 a pro-vaccine medical doctor stated that with education about 28 percent of the people would accept vaccination. With fear and presure the remaining 72 percent would accept vaccination. [1]

USA
Coming closer to our own time, the Influenza Vaccination (flu) was licensed in 1945.
In 1980, after 35 years use, acceptance was only 20 percent of the target population.
In 1988, after 43 years of use the coverage was only 33 percent.
By the year 2000, coverage of the target population was about 65 percent.
It took over 50 years of voluntary flu vaccine use to reach the majority, over 50 percent, of the target population, those over age 65.

(Addendum) reference: October 2001 anthrax sent through mail:
USA January 2002

"Of 10,000 people who may have been exposed to anthrax during the recent attacks, fewer than 2 percent have taken the anthrax vaccine, a figure that reflects postal employees' deep reluctance to enroll in a medical experiment, federal health officials said today."
Published by The New York Times, January 8, 2002.

The majority of people are perfectly willing to "wait and see" if effectiveness and safety is established before adopting the use of a vaccine.

Mandatory vaccination is the will of a minority which is imposed upon the majority.

The AAPS "Association of American Physicians and Surgeons" A Voice for Private Physicians Since 1943"

In November 2000, at their 57th Annual Meeting in St. Louis, the AAPS passed without a single "no" vote, a resolution to oppose vaccine mandates. "Our children face the possibility of death of serious long-term adverse effects from mandated vaccines that aren't necessary or that have very limited beneits," said Jane M. Orient, MD, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) Executive Director. " This is not a vote against vaccines," said Dr. Orient, "This resolution only attempts to halt blanket vaccine mandates by government agencies and school districts that give no consideration for the rights of the parents or the individual medical condition of the child." Source: MandatoryVaxKrisSev.htm

An example was given by DHHS for a disease of importance, (Hib), for children to be vaccinated against. The official estimates of prevaccine incidence can be stated three ways:
one child in 200,
or 99.5% lifetime immunity
or 20,000 cases per year.
Is it significant that the unvaccinated child might have 1 chance in 200 to contract the disease as far as allowing that child to go to day care? More on this subject is below.

No immunity in the unvaccinated:
Is vaccination the only factor in immunization? Imagine a family living in a highly polluted area gives their two children a very poor diet. A second family living in a clean environment gives their two children an excellent diet and and other health advantages. Each family vaccinates one child and leaves the other child unvaccinated. Will the immunity of the two vaccinated children be the same? Will the immunity of the two unvaccinated children be the same? Of course not, it is non controversial to state that the child living with a good diet and clean surroundings will have the higher immunity over their counterpart in both cases. Vaccination is obviously only one factor in immunity.

The concept that the unvaccinated have no immunity is based on the disproved theory of protection by the preexisting presence of antibodies. It is common for the vast majority of unvaccinated individuals exposed to a virus to exhibit no symptoms of disease. This demonstrates preexisting immunity which is not dependent upon having antibodies prepared ahead of the exposure.

A summary of the minimal expected natural immunity levels is below.

As an example of natural immunity in the unvaccinated, Hib incidence before 1946, was one child in 800 (estimated). Following the addition of several vaccines for each child, Hib incidence in VACCINATED (against other diseases) children increased to one child in 200 by 1985. “In Minnesota, a state epidemiologist concluded that the Hib ... vaccinated children were five times more likely to contract meningitis than unvaccinated children.” [4] Studies have shown that Hib vaccine increases the rate of diabetes to the extent that any alleged benefit is offset by the increased cost of diabetes care. [5]
[For a Modern vaccine sales, policy maker and vaccine patient holder's view points, click here]

DHHS employees stated they have seen “vaccine preventable deaths”.
Children do not die from a lack of vaccine, instead they die from malnutrition, medical mistreatment and very severe chronic diseases. To understand why deaths occur either in illness or following vaccination see the book, “Every Second Child” by Dr. Archie Kalokerinos. Japan stopped vaccinating it's under age two children from 1975-1980 and saved many infant lives.

A DHHS employee stated that a child had died of a severe case of chickenpox. Chickenpox is mild and doctors in the 1800's never saw children die of chickenpox. Children do not die FROM infectious disease but there are four reasons why children die WITH infectious disease.
1. External forms of “poison” get into the body. (Filth, sewer water, etc)
2. Malnutrition. Yes, even in a well fed society this happens.
3. Mistreatment.
4. Serious underlying Chronic disease.

One. As our society has good sanitation, this external poisoning by filthy conditions is seldom seen today.

Two. Malnutrition among young children is more common that usually thought. Simply put, it requires internal nutritional support, typically vitamin A and Vitamin C to support the successful healing of a disease. The lack of this nutritional support is a large part of the cause of death as well as the disease's severity. Vitamin A and C therapy is cheap, available, safe and effective in preventing death but seldom used in conventional settings. This key to why children die with infectious disease applies as well to death following vaccination as recovery from either challenge requires nutritional elements.

Three. Mistreatment can consist of the suppression of fever. Fever is a healing mechanism of the body. Another form of mistreatment is the giving of one or more rounds of medicines which suppress the mechanisms of healing rather than supporting the body's needs.

The chickenpox death mentioned above was most likely related to serious underlying disease and may have been preventable by proper vitamin therapy and/or by withholding harmful treatments.

In the USA, about 3000 children are estimated to die each year from vaccine adverse reactions. These deaths usually occur in the first 2 years of life, predominately under age one and are typically labeled SIDS or Respiratory Failure. When older and unvaccinated children die their deaths are labeled “vaccine preventable” but in fact these children typically would have died earlier of vaccine reactions had they been vaccinated.

Disease occurs but vaccination is not the solution. [1]

A DHHS employee gave a standard theory of immunization by antibodies which is used to justify vaccination. However, this antibody theory was disproved over 50 years ago.

1. Individuals with high levels of antibodies can contract the very disease for which they are supposedly protected.

2. It has also been found that individuals with low or zero antibody levels exhibit immunity. In a diphtheria lab in Great Britain during an outbreak, no correlation between antibody level and immunity could be found. [2]

3. In addition,there are a few individuals who have a medical condition [3] such that they can not manufacture antibodies. These individuals not only recovered from disease incidence almost as rapidly as their peers, but in addition, exhibited good immunity to further exposures in the above study.

4. Recently, immunologists have found that there are many kinds of antibodies. A healthy immune system has a high level of killer cells and a low level of memory cells. Vaccines bias the immune system to the opposite condition, an unhealthy one associated with asthma and allergies.

Antibodies are NOT an adequate explanation of how immunity works. By focusing on antibodies, attention is diverted from the true causes of health and immunity.

http://www.vaclib.org/links/graphs.htm. The decline in mortality following vaccination is similar to the decline before the introduction of vaccination. Some diseases disappeared without any vaccination. Sufficient data is available to quickly prove that smallpox vaccine did not prevent smallpox. Millions of lives have been saved by sanitary and nutritional reforms. Vaccination has been given the credit that rightfully belongs to other beneficial changes in the last 250 years.

The following quotes are by Dr. Paul Offit, whose biography is below.

Briefly Dr. Offit is recognized by the U.S. government, helped make U.S. vaccination policy for a time, has advised Merck Pharmaceuticals, and authored pro-vaccine text books.

His explanations are somewhat different than mine, in that he says exposure to disease without developing symptoms is a development of one type of natural immunity versus my explanation that this action repressents a exhibition of preexisting immunity. However his statements clearly support the observation that unvaccinated children experience exposure to disease and can do so without any symptoms. As might be expected of someone in his position, Dr. Offit does not recommend this approach to immunity.

Quotes (in italics) from The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Dr. Offits web site:

* Natural immunity is created by the body's natural barriers, such as the skin, protective substances in the mouth, the urinary tract and on the eye surface. Another type of natural immunity is in the form of antibodies passed on from mother to child. [1]

[Below, Dr Offit compares two children developing natural immunity,
one by immunity following sickness (Chip)
and the other (Dale) by exhibiting no symptoms.]

Dale also plays with the child who had measles. However, Dale never develops symptoms of measles. He doesn't get fever, rash or pneumonia. Dale was infected with measles virus, but didn't get any of the symptoms of measles. This is called an "asymptomatic infection.” Because Dale, like Chip, also develops “memory B cells,” he too is immune to measles for the rest of his life. [2]

[Dr. Offit claims that babies have an ability to handle immune system challenges far stronger than routine vaccine challenges.]

"Children have an enormous capacity to respond safely to challenges to the immune system...," says Dr. Offit. "A baby's body is bombarded with immunologic challenges - from bacteria in food to the dust they breathe." [3]

It is little wonder that unvaccinated children possess high degrees of immunity.

Dr. Offit's extensive biography and references Follow. The quotes above show that the existence of natural immunity is recognized by a leading pro-vaccine government policy maker and vaccine patent holder and provides a basis for the judgment that unvaccinated children have sufficient degrees of immunity and thus are safe to enroll in day care.

Dr. Paul Offit's Biography:
The Vaccine Education Center director: Paul A. Offit, MD,
is a pediatrician specializing in infectious disease medicine,
an internationally known expert on vaccines, immunology, and virology,
the Maurice R. Hilleman Professor of Vaccinology,
Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania,
Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases,
and the Director of the Vaccine Education Center at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.
Dr. Offit has been a member of the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. [ACIP is the committee that makes recommendations for vaccines to be put on the children's schedule in the USA.]

He is also an author and a consultant to pharmaceutical giant Merck, with whom he shares a rotavirus vaccine patent (number 353547). Dr. Offit has published more than 120 papers in medical and scientific journals in the areas of rotavirus-specific immune responses and vaccine safety and is the co-inventor of a rotavirus vaccine recently recommended for universal use in infants by the CDC.

Offit is the co-author of three books, entitled
Vaccines: What You Should Know (2003),
Breaking the Antibiotic Habit (1999),
and The Cutter Incident: How America’s First Polio Vaccine Led to Today’s Growing Vaccine Crisis (2005). [4]

References: [this section only]
[1] http://www.chop.edu/consumer/your_child/condition_section_index.jsp?id=-8238
[2] http://www.chop.edu/consumer/jsp/division/generic.jsp?id=75748
[3] http://www.chop.edu/consumer/jsp/division/generic.jsp?id=81553
[4] Dr. Offit's biography was taken from: http://www.chop.edu/consumer/jsp/division/generic.jsp?id=75689


Note: chop.edu is the web site of The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. See above for Dr. Offit's work in this Hospital.

Hepatitis B: prior to recommendation of Infant Vaccination in 1992, disease incidence was less than 6 per 100,000 for individuals less than 19 years of age.

Rotavirus: Recent placebo-controlled trials by Merck show over 90% natural immunity in the placebo group for the first rotavirus season following vaccination.

Diphtheria: In the USA, prior to using diphtheria vaccine there was a 95 percent decline in mortality due to the disease. (Source: the records of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.) It is not uncommon for diphtheria incidence rates to rise following vaccination campaigns. Natural immunity is above 99%.

Tetanus is not contagious. Incidence had dropped to about 1 case per 250,000 population per year prior to tetanus incidence being officially counted and tracked by public health officials and prior to widespread civilian use of tetanus vaccine.

Pertussis: Current incidence rate among the vaccinated is about 1 per 100,000 with an admitted poor immunization rate in younger children. Natural immunity will be above 99%.

Hib: Natural immunity in the prevaccine era was about 99.5 percent through age 5.

Pneumococcal disease: Lifetime natural immunity in 1999, before the introduction of a vaccine was greater than 96-99%. (I.E. 19 cases per 100,000 whites and 55 cases per 100,000 blacks)

Polio: In the Netherlands, a group numbering about 183,400 unvaccinated in a subpopulation of 275,000 had a polio incidence rate between 1978 and 1993 of 11 cases per year. Because 110 cases occurred in 1978, there was no polio incidence in 14 of the 16 years of the study. (99.9999% immunity.)

Influenza: The flu vaccine is admitted to be ineffective some years, and it is controversial that the vaccine has any effectiveness other years. In any case, clinical influenza is always less than 15% of Influenza Like Illness (ILI) and thus natural immunity is typically above 85% to clinical influenza in any season.

Measles: It is believed that in 1900, all children had measles. By 1962, the CDC puts measles incidence at 10 percent of the birth rate. By 1974, natural immunity was about 97.5 % and continued to rise.

Mumps: A disease with the highest rates among children over 5 years of age. The natural immunity to mumps in 1967, prior to the licensure of mumps vaccine was 96.2 percent and is expected to exceed 99 percent today.

Rubella: a very mild illness. At one point the American Medical Association Journal reported that more than 90% of the obstetricians and gynaecologists had refused vaccination even though their patients are at high risk for Rubella occurring in pregnancy. Results of a recent trial by Merck, the pharmaceutical giant, suggests that natural immunity to rubella is above 98 percent.

Hepatitis A: According to the CDC, the prevaccine Hepatitis A incidence ranged from 9 to 15 cases per 100,000 population.

Meningococcal disease: In the USA, 1400 to 2800 total cases per year or about .5 to 1 per 100,000 population. A CDC graph shows this rate to have been true since 1967.

Varicella: (Chickenpox)
Contrary to popular opinion, the incidence of chickenpox was declining prior to the introduction of the first vaccine.

In 1990-1994, natural immunity to chickenpox may have been as high as 83 percent, that is only 17 cases per hundred children . Natural immunity was about 94% in the 1 to 4 year old range according to National Health Interview data published by the CDC. Natural immunity was about 96 % among less than one year olds.

A group health cooperative estimated it had an 18 % data capture based on the concept of 100 percent susceptibility but its raw rates before “correction” were similar to the above National Health Interview. Also, for the 18% estimate to be correct, only about 1 in 5.5 people would have sought health care for chickenpox. The actual incidence in the first year of life would have been as low as 2 per hundred (if 82% immune) or as high as about 9 cases per hundred infants (zero immune). Using the group health data, the incidence in the age 1-4 years age group would have been as low as 1.6% or as high an 9 percent. (91.2 – 98.4% immunity.)

Data published in 1998 shows the following:
"Four to 10 percent of VZV vaccine recipients may develop a generalized maculo-papular rash within 7-21 days post vaccination, consisting of usually less than 50 lesions."

Several other studies have reported that each year post vaccination 1% to 3% of vaccinated children develop a mild varicella disease (mild varicella like syndrome, or MVLS) after exposure to wild-type varicella (31-33).

Using the above data, I have calculated the late prevaccine era incidence in 100 children based on the concept of zero immunity, moderate immunity and the early vaccine incidence in the same number of children.

 
Age 1-4, a four years span (From first birthday to 5th birthday) 
Worst case scenario		|   82-83% immune scenario     	|   Vaccinated
100 Unvaccinated zero immunity:	|100 Unvaccinated 83% immunity	|  100 Vaccinated 97% immunity.
4 years x 8.8 = 35 cases 	|4 x 2, or 4 x 6 = 8 -  24 cases|    4 x  3%/yr = 12 cases
						| 4%-10% *           4 –  10
						|Total                    8 – 22 cases
*MMRV package insert currently lists 2.1% for varicella rash following vaccination.

As far as cases go, without taking into account the severity, moderate immunity versus vaccinated immunity in the 1-4 year old range will show about the same number of cases for a 4 year span of 100 moderately immune versus 100 vaccinated in the 1 – 4 year old range. Given that a child in the first year of life is only unvaccinated and exposed to others for one year, the relative risks for the three classes for one year are: 9 cases, 2-6 cases, and 7-13 cases. For a one year exposure, the vaccinated expose the unvaccinated children to about about as many cases as the unvaccinated, although these cases are said to be “mild” and less contagious. This is due to the cases that are “triggered” or caused by the live virus vaccine itself.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0838/is_n79/ai_18223186 Sometimes active natural immunity can develop even without clinical symptoms of disease. For example, about 70 percent of adults who say they have not had chickenpox do have antibodies to varicella, the chickenpox virus.

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/faqs/varicella-faqs.htm
Varicella Immunity
Just because you don't remember having chickenpox doesn't mean you are not immune. There are some adults who actually have not had chickenpox, but many people who think they did not have chickenpox turn out to be immune if tested.

1. There is a handy Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) search utility at: http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/

2. Medical Research Council entitled A study of diphtheria in two areas of Gt. Britain, Special report series 272, HMSO 1950 cited by Magda Taylor in article for “Informed Parent.”

3. Medical condition called agammaglobulinaemia prevents the formation of antibodies.

4. DISPELLING VACCINATION MYTHS: by Alan Phillips

5. Vaccines Are They Really Safe & Effective? revised edition,by Neil Z. Miller.