Reasons For Exemptions

Please click on an area below for more information.

Reasons Against Exemptions (FAQs)

1.  Will herd immunity be compromised in West Virginia because of exemptions?
No.  None of the other 48 states have suffered loss of herd immunity because they have vaccination exemptions.  According to the CDC's National Immunization Survey, there is no link between having exemptions or the type of exemption and lower vaccination coverage.  Many other states with both religious and philosophical exemptions have a higher vaccination rate than West Virginia. 

Threats of the return of infectious diseases are based on "ifs," such as if there are large numbers of exemptors.  The fact is, there are not large numbers.  Exemptions for religious and moral beliefs are claimed on the average by less than 1% of the population.  If vaccination coverage falls by 1%, that is not nearly enough to lose herd immunity.  Herd immunity has never been threatened by exemptions in the 48 other states that allow this freedom.

2.  Will our immunized children start catching diseases because of exemptors?
No.   Immunized children are protected, period.  In fact, that is the whole reason for vaccinating:  to prevent your child from catching a disease from other people (whether they are vaccinated or not vaccinated).  If vaccines work, you have nothing to fear from other people.  If the vaccines don't work, forcing other people to vaccinate won't help to protect themselves or your child.

3.  Will our immunocompromised children, who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons, start catching diseases because of exemptors?
No.  For the few children who are not vaccinated for medical reasons, it is said that herd immunity provides an indirect protection of unvaccinated children by making it difficult for the disease to spread.  As discussed above, herd immunity has never been lost in 48 other states because of exemptions.

On the other hand, children who were recently vaccinated with live virus vaccines are a very real danger to immuno- compromised children.  Live virus vaccines include the MMR, chickenpox, oral polio. and Flumist.  These live viruses are weakened, but are still dangerous to children who have immunodeficiencies.  Parents of immunocompromised children should be more worried about the realistic threat of catching diseases from recently vaccinated children than about the speculative threat that diseases are coming back if half a percent of the population claims exemptions.

4. Will exemptions cause diseases to return and kill people?
No.  The other 48 states have never seen a return of diseases because of exemptions.  From time to time, a few, small isolated outbreaks will occur, but these occur in fully vaccinated populations as well as unvaccinated ones.  It is unfair and discriminatory to single out unvaccinated children as any more of a public health threat than vaccinated children who get the same disease. 

Studies that try to blame exemptors for increased disease rates are deeply flawed.  For example, one article says, "Children were labeled as exemptors if they took an exemption from only 1 vaccine but still received others."  That means, sometimes they were comparing vaccinated children to vaccinated children.  So what does it mean that some vaccinated children are more likely to catch a disease than other vaccinated children?  Nothing.

This handout in 2003 against religious freedom and parental choice (PDF file) was circulated amongst legislators in 2003 to oppose vaccination exemption.  This tabloid handout threatens that exemptions will "kill your children and grandchildren."  It uses emotional blackmail instead of addressing the issues honestly and intelligently.  Most of these statistics are unsubstantiated and unreferenced.  We have a proven track record that exemptions are not killing children in the other 48 states.  However, it is a fact that vaccines do kill children.  Parents must be allowed to choose if they want to take that risk.

4.  Isn't public health more important than individual rights?
When determining whether a state has compelling interest over individual freedoms, a court will want to see the least restrictive method for protecting public health.  Our country has a strong 30 year history of allowing exemptions in 48 states without compromising public health.  If other states can protect both public health and individual rights, why can't West Virginia?

Many other countries, that do not claim as much pride over being the "land of the free" as the USA, either do not have mandatory vaccinations or allow exemptions.   Other industrialized countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, and many other European countries, allow parents to choose freely for whatever reasons they wish and do not require vaccinations even to attend school.  These countries have not seen their herd immunity compromised or their public health threatened. 

5.  If public health is not at stake, then why pass laws that force people to vaccinate?
Money.  Stephanie Cave, MD, explained the system very well in her book, "What Your Doctor May Not Tell You about Children's Vaccinations" (Warner Books, 2001).

"The CDC has given hundreds of milliions of dollars to state health departments in the form of immunization grants since 1965.  When the hepatitis B vaccine was added to the recommended list, the states could hope to get some of that money if they enforced a mandatory vaccinations and tracked them...

"And the amount of funds is substantial.  The Comprehensive Childhood Immunization Act of 1993 gave the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) the authority to give more than $400 million annually to states that establish a registry that tags and tracks children as they recieve their mandatory vaccinations, including hepatitis B vaccine.  Each state receives between $50 and $100 per child who is fully vaccianted with all federally recommended vaccines. 

To help states establish a vaccine tracking system and enforce their vaccination mandates, each state is eligible for federal grants.  In addition, they also get monies from pharmaceutical companies, specifically vaccine manufacturers.  The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Johnson& Johnson, which funds the vaccine program All Kids Count) is one such funding company.  Its vaccine ties are with Merck& Company, which manufacturers MMR, varicella [chickenpox] and hepatitis B vacciens.  In 1989, Merck joined with Johnson & Johnson to form Worldwide Consumer Pharmaceutical Companies....

...Once the electronic surveillance program is in place, it will allow the government to deny more citizens their rights if it believes the citizens are not following certain health policites in the interst of public safety....I believe this medical registry erodes privacy, medical freedom, and the right to self-determination...."

Our state legislature must not be the pawn of a federal agency that seeks to violate constitutionally protected rights indirectly by bribing state health departments to do it for them.

State health departments provide many useful and vital services.  But when they try influence the legislature to force people to buy products that give them kickbacks, they are no longer speaking for the best interests of our children, but for the best interests of their own funding.  The state legislature needs to make it clear that our parental rights to protect our own children's health and our religious freedoms cannot be bought by pharmaceutical companies and the federal government, and indeed, our state legislature refuses to sell them.  Our children are best protected by parents who know them and love them, and must remain that way.