- Varicella Disease (Chickenpox) Documentation
- Medical Exemption Form
- Religious Exemption Form
- College Exemptions Form
- Notice of Missing Immunizations and Provisional Admittance
- Notice of Provisional Admittance and Exclusion
- K-12 Provisional/Exempt Line List (Excel)
- K-12 Immunization Checklist
*This information can be found at: http://www.healthvermont.gov/immunizations-infectious-disease/immunization/k-12-school-nurses-and-administrators
Fact: Vaccination of school children has ALWAYS been a voluntary procedure, decided by the parents, in the State of Vermont.
In 1979, school vaccine recommendations were put into place – but at that time, Vermont parents’ rights were carefully – and deliberately – protected against medical and drug industry interests. At that time, doctors and schools wanted to guard against potential lawsuits. So, forms were prepared. The form used in Vermont from 1979 -2012, included an area for parents to sign.
“I request that following immunization(s) be waived because they conflict with my free exercise of religious, moral or philosophic rights.”
Those declining the procedure file what is called an “exemption.”
Vermont citizens have long-held reservations against compulsory vaccination. For more than a century, (and long before the industry was indemnified from product liability – in 1986), this debate has been quite active.
One can also read about the grave concerns expressed by citizens like F.E. Simpson of Glover, Vermont: He warned about our fundamental rights and liberties being at risk due to medical politics (see the Orleans County monitor, January 12, 1921).
In more recent times, there was Marcia Bruno’s insistence that parents have the ultimate choice when it comes to vaccination for their children. She wrote her letter as the state board of health and pediatricians were pushing for mandatory school vaccination laws in 1979. Marcia Bruno’s plea ended in a vote that added broad discretion in vaccine decision-making for Vermont parents in 1979.
In 1979, “Moral Exemptions” and “Religious Exemptions” were built into the original “school immunization” law in Vermont. Lawmakers and doctors respected that parents must always reserve the right not to inject a serum into their children, whether they are religious or not, because the product could cause harm. In reviewing the legislative history of the original 1979 law, Dorian and I found a couple things of interest:
- Even after 294 cases of measles in the state the year prior, the wise lawmakers of that time still included the right for a parent to say no based on religious beliefs or moral (philosophical) convictions; and
- Lawmakers at that time knew that lawsuits were possible. Lawsuits against the state, town school districts, drug makers, doctors, and school boards were all identified as possible – if a child were to have a bad reaction. The potential for these reactions was openly discussed. This liability was yet another reason why lawmakers at the time emphatically objected – unless parental choice was built into the law.
Click here to view/download the original “exemption” form, which said:
Just seven years later, in 1986, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, shielding vaccine manufacturers and doctors from civil product liability and malpractice lawsuits when a permanent disability or death is caused by a vaccine.
If the AAP and CDC’s vaccine “recommendations” are followed, babies born in 2016 will receive 50 injections by age 18. This is seven times the number of injections recommended in 1983, before industry was freed from liability for product harm.
In 2007, Merck and some legislators tried, but failed, to mandate the HPV vaccine for school entry in Vermont. At that time, “Moral Exemptions” were re-named to “Philosophical Exemptions.”
In 2011, the Supreme Court decided Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, prohibiting any individual from filing a civil suit for a defectively designed vaccine in any US court. Pharmaceutical companies and doctors now enjoy extraordinary protection against liability for vaccine injury or death that may occur after they “give” a vaccine.
Also in 2011, the jump in Vermont’s philosophical exemption, that had resulted from new HepB and chicken pox mandates, was stirred in the media as a “dangerous” drop in vaccination rates. Unelected state employees then openly worked with drug company lobbyists and groups funded by pharma, to try to eliminate parent religious/philosophical exemptions.
That way, in the future, they would be able to add anything to the school schedule, without parents being able to say no.
In 2012, “Philosophical Exemptions” were upheld in a vote of 133-6. At that time, the Vermont legislature displayed an overwhelming support for parental choice in such medical decision-making. It was only in 2015 that industry pressure became too much.
In 2015, using a national campaign to spread fear of measles, and after intense lobbying by pharma and the medical industry, “Philosophical Exemptions” were deleted from Vermont law on July 1, 2016.
Today “Religious Exemptions” remain available to Vermont parents.
Medical exemptions are also available, but we are told by parents they are impossible to get, because pediatricians refuse to acknowledge or make any connection between vaccines and their side effects.
Parents need to understand that it is critical to have consent and choice in a free society. Please note that agency Health Department employees have modified “required educational material” and are choosing to withhold important product risk information from parents.
The right to informed consent to any medical intervention that can kill or injure you or your child is a human right.
Consider for example the United Nations Universal Declaration on Bioethics Article 6 – Consent, – which states:
1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
2. Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice. Exceptions to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal standards adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law.
3. In appropriate cases of research carried out on a group of persons or a community, additional agreement of the legal representatives of the group or community concerned may be sought. In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.
written by: Jennifer Stella