By Ann Tomoko Rosen

Vaccine exemptions are under fire throughout the country due to measles fears, but before we hand over inalienable rights, we need to gain a deeper understanding of the issues.

New Jersey only allows for exemptions to mandatory vaccinations when they are medically contraindicated or when they interfere with the free exercise of religious rights in accordance with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Interestingly, it is the American Medical Association that allows its members to opt out of vaccines for “philosophic” as well as religious or medical reasons.

However, vaccination rates in N.J. schools are upwards of 95% and only 2.4% of students use a religious exemption. Current laws have measures to remove these children from schools in the event of an outbreak and ALL students are asked to stay home if they have an infectious disease. But healthy children have a right to be in school.

Rather than removing rights or segregating unvaccinated children, we should seek a better understanding of these outbreaks. We are still waiting on evidence demonstrating if/how the New York State Department of Health confirmed the 800-plus measles cases it reported during the 2018-2019 outbreak and whether they are wild or vaccine strains. These details are critical to understanding this public health issue.

Vaccine-induced herd immunity is a theory that assumes that vaccination can substitute for natural exposure to a disease. In 1963, the measles vaccine was introduced along with the promise of lifelong immunity. Scientists believed that a 56% vaccination rate would result in herd immunity and predicted that measles would be eliminated by 1967. But vaccines have yet to demonstrate herd immunity because, much like other medicine or peanuts or even strawberries, different people respond differently. We know that 2% to 10% of vaccine recipients do not create antibodies (primary vaccine failure) and, thanks to waning immunity (secondary vaccine failure) nearly 50% of vaccinated school children can still get subclinical measles infections and spread it to others. In the meantime, the “herd immunity” threshold has risen from 56% to 70%, to 75%, to 80%, to 83%, 85%, 90%, and now 95%.

Measles doesn’t pose a serious public health threat in the US. For most it’s a harmless childhood infection that can confer lifelong immunity and reduce the likelihood of cancers, heart disease and autoimmune issues[vi]. The CDC’s claim that measles kills 1 in 1,000 infected people is based on reported cases requiring medical attention in the 1960s. At that time, prior to the vaccine, measles mortality was 2-in-a million in the US.

While the immune compromised require special consideration, even 100% vaccine compliance won’t assure their protection. Unfortunately, this population is vulnerable to ALL infectious diseases as well as vaccine shedding, which is why people undergoing cancer treatment are advised to avoid contact with the recently vaccinated. Furthermore, many vaccines on the CDC-recommended schedule are not for infectious diseases.

If the call to remove exemptions is rooted in concerns over vaccine hesitancy, then we need to examine vaccine hesitancy. Parents have legitimate concerns. They are regularly dismissed when they observe adverse reactions following vaccinations and have noticed troubling patterns of “coincidences” for which no other explanations are offered.

They have watched the childhood vaccination schedule nearly triple since manufacturer liability was removed in 1986. Their children have allergies, eczema, asthma, POTS, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, encephalopathy and seizure disorders and they wonder why. Some know that vaccines have never undergone randomized double-blind studies using an inert placebo. Others read labels and simply want the right to choose what gets injected into their children.

Let’s address these concerns before we remove more rights.

Ann Tomoko Rosen, LAc, is a patient rights advocate and co-founder of The Center For Acupuncture and Herbal Medicine in Westfield.