This was a response to much contact with his office and multiple conversations with his staff.-
Thank you for contacting my office regarding your opposition to SB 277 (Pan) relating to vaccinations. I appreciate you taking the time to write me on issues mattering most to you. The recent outbreak of measles has caused many to believe we are now seeing the effect of California’s “exemption” clause. This has now prompted debate of our state’s policy on the issue and has materialized into SB 277 which will mandate vaccines for public school children by eliminating the personal exemption clause. Having heard both sides of the vaccine debate in my role as a member of the Senate Education Committee, I do not believe the current outbreak of measles warrants elimination of the personal exemption. While I am sensitive to the needs of immune compromised individuals, the reality is some vaccines (such as the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella vaccine) wear off after time. Some vaccines actually make the person vaccinated contagious for a while (i.e. the Chicken Pox vaccine). We also have a large immigrant and tourist population who are not vaccinated. To that end, an elimination of the personal exemption is not in and of itself helpful to those who are immune compromised. A parent having a child with a compromised immune system would be negligent to place their child in a public school or public amusement park without expecting diseases to be transmitted. With all that said, I value vaccines and the medical advances that have created a plethora of vaccines available to protect us from many horrible diseases. I have even inoculated myself and my family. However, the current rules of inoculation, in my estimation, are not broken, and are serving us well. I have not yet heard a compelling argument that would warrant my trading the personal choice of parents to an over-reach of governmental authority. Bottom line is preserving the freedom of choice is outweighing the need for this measure. I think both sides of the argument can be protected by educating people to the realities of vaccines not mandating them. Rest assured, your thoughts on this issue was logged and taken into consideration. Once again, thank you for contacting me. If I may be of further assistance on this or any other state-related matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at either of my offices. It is an honor to represent you in the State Senate. Sincerely, Bob Huff |
#1 by Dorit Reiss on May 13, 2015 - 3:48 pm
Dear Senator Huff,
I am troubled by your comments. Reasonable people can differ on whether removing the exemption from school immunization requirements and allowing non-vaccinating parents to continue to send their children to school without protection from disease is a good idea or a bad idea. But such disagreements must be based on accurate facts.
There are at least three incorrect facts in your analysis.
A. MMR immunity wanes over time. Here is what the CDC says: : http://www.cdc.gov/Mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00053391.htm.
for measles “…both serologic and epidemiologic evidence indicate that the vaccine induces long-term — probably lifelong — immunity, in most persons.” For Rubella, “Follow-up studies indicate that one dose of vaccine confers long-term — probably lifelong – protection.” For mumps, “The duration of vaccine-induced immunity is unknown, but serologic and epidemiologic data collected during 30 years of live vaccine use indicate both the persistence of antibody and continuing protection against infection.”http://www.cdc.gov/Mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00053391.htm.
See also:
“estimated antibody half lives of 92 years for smallpox, 3014 years for measles, 542 years for mumps, 114 years for rubella, 11,552 years for Epstein-Barr, 50 years for varicella-zoster, 11 years for tetanus (which is why a booster is recommended) and 19 years for diphtheria (though 85% of subjects were still immune). Immunity to tetanus and diphtheria probably last much longer, but the antibody levels measured were at the detection limit of the assays used”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17989383
Mumps does wane faster, but not fast enough that a child who received MMR before school would be a risk, in general.
B. Some vaccines make person receiving them contagious for a while, using the example of chicken pox – vaccine shedding is possible, but extremely rare. “the chicken pox vaccine doesn’t cause shedding unless your child very rarely develops a vesicular rash after getting vaccinated. However, the risk is thought to be minimal and the CDC reports only 5 cases of transmission of varicella vaccine virus after immunization among over 55 million doses of vaccine.” http://pediatrics.about.com/od/immunizations/a/live-vaccines.htm
The risk of infection with the wild virus from someone who is unvaccinated is much greater – which is why household contacts of immune compromised people are encouraged to get these vaccines:
“http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24582311 “Close contacts of patients with compromised immunity should not receive live oral poliovirus vaccine because they might shed the virus and infect a patient with compromised immunity. Close contacts can receive other standard vaccines because viral shedding is unlikely and these pose little risk of infection to a subject with compromised immunity.
Particularly important are annual immunizations with inactivated influenza vaccine; scheduled periodic pertussis vaccine (Tdap); pneumococcal vaccine; measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine; and varicella vaccine for older contacts whose routine immunizations might not be up to date..”
C. Immigrants: immigrant does not necessarily mean unvaccinated. In fact, often the rates among immigrants are very, very high. http://epidemiological.net/2014/07/13/those-immigrant-children-and-their-diseases/
In short, the risk to immune compromised is really more from unvaccinated children – at higher risk of disease – than any of the above. If those facts were what led you to your view, I urge you to reconsider.
#2 by Message to Dorit Reiss on May 14, 2015 - 9:10 pm
PARENTS are the only ones to make this decision for their children, not a politician and certainly not you.