On February 10, 2011, citizens of New Hampshire met with a state committee to present their case for the passage of a bill to provide a conscientious exemption to immunizations.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE ENACTMENT OF A PHILOSOPHICAL EXEMPTION TO IMMUNIZATIONS
I. Credit Given to Vaccines for 20th Century Childhood Infectious Disease Declines is Misplaced
II. A Reliable Vaccine-Disease Risk-Benefit Assessment is not Feasible
III. The Belief That Unvaccinated Persons Pose a Risk of Harm to Others is Without Merit
IV. Mandatory Vaccination Prevents Citizens From Choosing Proven Safer, Less Costly, More Effective Alternatives
V. Conflicts of Interest Raise Serious Questions About Vaccine Policy
VI. Reliance on the Pharmaceutical Industry is Severely Misplaced
VII.Philosophical Exemptions Are Time-Tested and Safe
VIII. Medical Experts Disagree About Vaccine Safety and Effectiveness
IX. Vaccination Raises a Fundamental Rights Question
1. Credit given to vaccines for 20th century infectious disease declines is misplaced. Vaccine history does not support an absolute mandate for vaccines.
2. Data for accurate vaccine-disease risk-benefit is not available. Therefore, government lacks the means by which to adequately determine whether or not vaccines provide a net benefit and are in fact actually necessary, and therefore, must allow conscientious exemptions.
3. Claims that the unvaccinated pose a risk of harm to the vaccinated are unfounded (if vaccines work, how could an unvaccinated person harm a vaccinated person?). Claims that the unvaccinated pose a risk of harm to those who can't be vaccinated or whose vaccines don't work are based on a misplaced belief in the disproven "herd immunity" theory. Therefore, the unwarranted, fear-based concerns about risks posed by the unvaccinated do not present a legitimate bar to the enactment of a conscientious exemption right. Furthermore, those who can't be vaccinated or whose vaccines don't work have viable alternatives that may work better than vaccines and that are safer and less expensive.
4. The evidence shows that vaccines were actually counterproductive in some instances. Clearly, then, government should allow a conscientious exemption so that citizens can assess the merits of individual vaccines.
5. There are viable, proven alternatives to immunizations. Homeoprophylaxis is far less expensive, more effective, and safer with no risk of injury or death. Vaccines carry a risk of permanent injury or death, are more costly, and are of questionable efficacy when scrutinized objectively. Therefore, citizens should have the right to choose from among all of the available options. Absent this option, government is endorsing only one of many legitimate health care modalities, to the exclusive profit of one industry, thereby substantially interfering with the free market.
6. Where conflicts of interest exist with those setting policy, there is a moral and ethical imperative for citizens to have and retain the right to evaluate and disagree with the resulting policy. Immunization policy is driven by the very industry that manufactures the vaccines, and that industry routinely engages in criminal behavior. NO ONE SHOULD EVER BE REQUIRED TO USE PRODUCTS CREATED BY AN INDUSTRY THAT ROUTINELY ENGAGES
IN CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.
7. Conscientious exemptions are time-tested. About 20 states representing a majority of the U.S. population currently have philosophical exemptions. If these exemptions caused serious problems, these exemption laws would have been repealed long ago. Clearly, philosophical exemptions have not created serious health problems, and if they ever should pose a problem, states retain the authority to impose emergency vaccines and/or quarantines as needed. A conscientious exemption poses no significant health threat to the state.
8. There is a growing body of lay persons and professionals, including credible medical professional and researchers, who are speaking out about problems with the conventional thinking on immunizations. There is a valid vaccine controversy. Given this reality, individuals should have and retain the right to make informed decisions.
9. Vaccines carry a risk of permanent injury and death. That risk may vary substantially from individual to individual, and the medical community has no gauge by which to assess that risk for healthy individuals. The herd immunity theory is flawed, so individual citizens cannot be said to have a responsibility to vaccinate for the sake of the community. Therefore, by definition, our democratic republic requires that citizens have the right to decide for themselves, as individuals, whether or not vaccines are right for them and their children.
In view of the above, and the scientific, legal, moral and ethical imperatives presented and supported therein, we respectfully request that the Honorable Senators and Representatives of this Great State support and pass the Bill adding an exemption from immunizations for conscientious beliefs.