Is it possible to get out of getting my dtr the flu shot?

[mfd25wife]

The individual child is considered, that is why there are reasons for exemptions. But the OP doesn't honestly fall under either of those exemptions. Should they force children that have medical issues or allergies to the vaccine to have the shot? (remember, this rule also includes children in child care, so we are including more than the 3 day a week preschool child here) And should we also change the freedom of religion that we all have?

Her child is not forced into preschool either.

Children under 5 are one of the highest risk groups for having complications from the flu. Children under 2 are an even higher risk.

Children under 6 months are not given the vaccine (someone correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that is what I understood from the CDC). If your 4
year old attends a preschool that also cares for children under 6 months (child care center with infants); would you really be ok with your 4 year old getting the flu from home and bringing it to that infant? It doesn't matter the
reason, would you be ok with it?

If it's for ALL the children who attend, all who attend should be required with no exemptions. The Chios who cannot be immunized doesn't have to go to school there or does the religious objector, if there are exemptions, the law isn't for all the children to be protected. "It's for all the children unless they have a good reason to opt out".

In your scenario, my 4 yr old is more likely to spread staph since we all carry it on our skin. If I worried about my child passing on a virus or bacteria, we'd never leave the house. If my 4 yr old didn't get a shot and a 6 month old got the flu, no one has a clue who carried it unless the 4 yr old is the only non vaccinated person besides the 6 mo old and the 6 mo old never goes anywhere but home and daycare. The likely culprit would be the daycare worker holding a baby (also non vaccinated) and then handing another baby something, like a rattle. You cannot irradiate all germs. No, I would not feel
bad because a 6 month old baby got the flu unless someone could prove it was because of the 4 yr old, which is impossible.

My 20 yr old keeps the nursery at church on Sunday's sometimes. As I mentioned before, she has not been vaccinated. If a child at church gets the flu, where did it originate? Again, no one knows unless my daughter is actively
sick and we aren't talking about sick kids with the flu, we've been talking about carriers. What if my daughter gets sick. Based on your argument, the parents of the children at church should not be ok with it because obviously she got it from the unvaccinated babies at church, not walmart or college or WDW, where we just were.

Someone, I'm not sure who it was, said using WDW was ridiculous because they don't have as much exposure. 2-3 yrs ago, DH and I were at Sunshine
Seasons and a couple and toddler were in front of us. Toddler was on floor. Toddler made kitty noises and cow noises. He really was a cute kid. Now, he's sitting directly on floor, not a stroller. Mom tells him that's good he knows animal sounds. He proceeds to bend over and lick the the floor and bark. mom's answer was, "you are such a cute doggie". All I could think was, "Oh my gosh! Doesn't she know what is likely on this floor where people have walked through restrooms, yards, paths where there's bird pooh or vomit, etc." I wanted to sanitize him myself. Obviously, I said nothing but if child got e-coli or other various bacteria, I'm would have thought it was from licking the floor. It's not Disney's fault. But, it's not ridiculous to say a child is more exposed there than a daycare. Btw, just read the food poison threads. People are quick to point out exposure to bugs, viruses, etc.

 

[luvmy3]

By lying, though, correct? Because the law does not say she can pretend to have a religious objection, it says she can have a religious objection. And since she's choosing to do the former because she does not have the latter, while I will stipulate that you are correct that it's a choice, it's not actually a legal choice, as it's a decision to lie to break the law. For example, if my neighbor was keeping me up at night playing loud music, you would be correct in saying I have a choice to ask my neighbor to turn down the loud music, or to shut my windows, or to break into his house and steal his stereo equipment and smash it with a sledgehammer, but only the first two of those choices are actually legal.

And you're fine with her decision to lie to circumvent the law, and I'll freely stipulate that's not the end of the world that she's choosing to do so, but I just want to make sure we're on the same page with our understanding of the facts. Because if you don't see how saying you have a religious objection when you, in fact, do not have one is NOT following the law, then you are not actually following at all, regardless of your inclusion of the cute laughing/pounding smiley...

Does the law state you have to prove your religious beliefs against vaccinations or does it state that you can claim them? Is she lying, yes. Is she breaking the law by claiming she has a religious objection, not if all she has to is claim one. Lying may be morally wrong, but in this case is it against the law? I don't care enough to look it up, but if you want to to make sure we are on the same page, go for it.
Maybe you don't quite follow, loopholes and such

 

[mhsjax]

I'm not saying he would side one way or the other. I think that you could argue he would agree with either stance. He could be against vaccines because he believes that you need to have evolved to the point that your body can naturally fight off illnesses. He could be for vaccines because he believes that we have evolved to a point where we know how to at least limit our chances of getting an illness. I wasn't trying to say that he would definitely agree with one side or the other. Just wondering which side people thought he would likely fall on.

Oh yeah, I get that. I tried to word it so you wouldn't think I was accusing you of having him on one side vs the other. And I also agree with your post above. The survival of the fittest just came to mind and I couldn't resist it and I said "not to be ugly" because I didn't want people thinking that I want kids and older people thrown out there to survive germ warfare, it was just an interesting topic to me.

 

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

Does the law state you have to prove your religious beliefs against vaccinations or does it state that you can claim them? Is she lying, yes. Is she breaking the law by claiming she has a religious objection, not if all she has to is claim one. Lying may be morally wrong, but in this case is it against the law? I don't care enough to look it up, but if you want to to make sure we are on the same page, go for it.
Maybe you don't quite follow, loopholes and such

N.J.S.A. 26:1A  9.1 provides an exemption for pupils from mandatory
immunization if the parent or guardian of the pupil objects thereto in a written
statement signed by the parent or guardian upon the grounds that the proposed
immunization interferes with the free exercise of the pupils religious rights.

You're going to read it your way, I'll read it my way. When I was in law school, and mind you it was over a decade ago and I am not a practicing attorney, I learned that knowingly signing a false statement to circumvent a rule or law is generally fraud, although not a fraud in this case that the authorities have the time or resources to pursue. I'll point out that the structure of the wording and the use of "if..." implies that the aforementioned condition must be met and I'll say that I suspect they wrote the law requiring a written statement because they want the parents/guardians to legally attest to their belief, which in this case the OP does not share. You will likely point out that it doesn't say that the parents actually have to believe what they're saying. I'll say that it's implied that when you make a signed written statement, it is a statement that is assumed to be true. You'll say that they didn't write it that way so it's still OK to lie. Then you'll use all sorts of cute snark and emoticons because you'll grow increasingly frustrated or decide to just toy with me, and I'll snark back because I have a tendency to pick at things that bother me and I'm killing time waiting for a flight and finished both of my books and other work so this is vaguely entertaining to me. We will go around and around, and obviously not change each other's minds, but it's an entertaining intellectual endeavor. Sound about right? C'est la vie!

 

[luvsJack]

If it's for ALL the children who attend, all who attend should be required with no exemptions. The Chios who cannot be immunized doesn't have to go to school there or does the religious objector, if there are exemptions, the law isn't for all the children to be protected. "It's for all the children unless they have a good reason to opt out".

In your scenario, my 4 yr old is more likely to spread staph since we all carry it on our skin. If I worried about my child passing on a virus or bacteria, we'd never leave the house. If my 4 yr old didn't get a shot and a 6 month old got the flu, no one has a clue who carried it unless the 4 yr old is the only non vaccinated person besides the 6 mo old and the 6 mo old never goes anywhere but home and daycare. The likely culprit would be the daycare worker holding a baby (also non vaccinated) and then handing another baby something, like a rattle. You cannot irradiate all germs. No, I would not feel
bad because a 6 month old baby got the flu unless someone could prove it was because of the 4 yr old, which is impossible.

My 20 yr old keeps the nursery at church on Sunday's sometimes. As I mentioned before, she has not been vaccinated. If a child at church gets the flu, where did it originate? Again, no one knows unless my daughter is actively
sick and we aren't talking about sick kids with the flu, we've been talking about carriers. What if my daughter gets sick. Based on your argument, the parents of the children at church should not be ok with it because obviously she got it from the unvaccinated babies at church, not walmart or college or WDW, where we just were.

Someone, I'm not sure who it was, said using WDW was ridiculous because they don't have as much exposure. 2-3 yrs ago, DH and I were at Sunshine
Seasons and a couple and toddler were in front of us. Toddler was on floor. Toddler made kitty noises and cow noises. He really was a cute kid. Now, he's sitting directly on floor, not a stroller. Mom tells him that's good he knows animal sounds. He proceeds to bend over and lick the the floor and bark. mom's answer was, "you are such a cute doggie". All I could think was, "Oh my gosh! Doesn't she know what is likely on this floor where people have walked through restrooms, yards, paths where there's bird pooh or vomit, etc." I wanted to sanitize him myself. Obviously, I said nothing but if child got e-coli or other various bacteria, I'm would have thought it was from licking the floor. It's not Disney's fault. But, it's not ridiculous to say a child is more exposed there than a daycare. Btw, just read the food poison threads. People are quick to point out exposure to bugs, viruses, etc.

No its not ridiculous. A child is more prone to get the flu in child care. And no your child is not more likely to spread staph. You cannot "sanitize" a child.

Flu and colds are spread easily through children because they touch their noses and mouths and then touch toys, chairs, tables, books, or whatever else is around in the preschool/center. And many at 4 still tend to put things in their mouths. THIS is what spreads flu and cold germs, not crawling around on the floor! When your child wipes his nose and then touches a book and hands it to his/her friend--he/she just spread his cold or flu to someone else.
Being at WDW does not necessarily subject you to the flu virus. Touching something that a sick person has picked up will. (unless you are in the habit of picking things after a stranger at WDW). Also, while you are visiting a place like WDW, you can use hand sanitizer after shopping, touching rails, etc. Teachers and child care providers cannot follow your child around all day with hand sanitizer.

I would RATHER my child lick a floor than put a toy that a sick child had in his/her hand in her mouth.

And to say there should be no exemptions is really a bit absurd. Do you not realize that this regulation is not just for children whose parents choose to send them to preschool? Its also for children in child care because their parents are WORKING. Are would you prefer to support these families so mom or dad can stay home with their child.

 

[DarthMama]

The flu shot is the "Law"
Wow, that's a new one to me
Is this a normal mandate???? It's been a long time since my kidlets were in preschool

Depends on what state you are in. In NJ, kids in day care (pre-school) are required to have flu shots, but the flu shot is not required for kids in grades 1 - 12 UNLESS the kids attend an after care program at a licensed day care. There are exceptions for kids with allergies to ingredients in the flu shot and for religious reasons.

(I have not read all the posts, so apologies if this is a repeat.)

 

[mfd25wife]

No its not ridiculous. A child is more prone to get the flu in child care. And no your child is not more likely to spread staph. You cannot "sanitize" a child.

Flu and colds are spread easily through children because they touch their noses and mouths and then touch toys, chairs, tables, books, or whatever else is around in the preschool/center. And many at 4 still tend to put things in their mouths. THIS is what spreads flu and cold germs, not crawling around on the floor! When your child wipes his nose and then touches a book and hands it to his/her friend--he/she just spread his cold or flu to someone else.
Being at WDW does not necessarily subject you to the flu virus. Touching something that a sick person has picked up will. (unless you are in the habit of picking things after a stranger at WDW). Also, while you are visiting a place like WDW, you can use hand sanitizer after shopping, touching rails, etc. Teachers and child care providers cannot follow your child around all day with hand sanitizer.

I would RATHER my child lick a floor than put a toy that a sick child had in his/her hand in her mouth.

And to say there should be no exemptions is really a bit absurd. Do you not realize that this
regulation is not just for children whose parents choose to send them to preschool? Its also for
children in child care because their parents are WORKING. Are would you prefer to support these
families so mom or dad can stay home with their child.

Wow. Yes, I know you can't sanitize a child. It was a statement describing how grossed out I was.

I've had the flu and I've had staph. I'll take the flu if I had to pick one. I got antivirals for the flu, I almost lost a leg to staph. It's not that hard to spread, either. We had problems at several schools that required shutting the them down or parts of them down to sanitize them because of staph.

I know how germs are spread, but thanks for the lecture . I've had kids, I'm married to a paramedic who was over the communicable disease training for a company, and I have a weak
immune system. I go nowhere without sanitizer but we all pick up germs. While most wash their
hands before going to the buffet or sitting down to eat, I do it again AFTER going to the buffet and
handling menus, trays, etc. because not everyone washes. And, yes I still rub my eyes or touch my
mouth subconsciously. Besides, are you saying kids with viruses (and adults) don't sneeze, cough, blow their nose at WDW then grab the safety belt, rails, etc without washing their hands first? And
no child touches the same items and then put their hands to their nose, mouth, or eyes? It's no
different than it happening with a book or toy.

It doesn't matter why the children are at the daycare or preschool. If it's for all the kids and not the individual as you state, they all have the option of not going, the answer some gave the OP was go
somewhere else or homeschool; it was her choice to send the child there. Why is the answer different for the other children? You should see they have the same option she does. Would you rather her stay home and collect government aid? People can keep throwing out issues of "that
unvaccinated kid will likely put someone in the hospital. Are you ok infecting other kids" to "those parents may have to work" or whatever but they apply to all of the families. Besides, those scientologist children or medically exempt are no less likely to infect the babies than the OP's child but they are given a pass. It's a guilt trip fear tactic but it applies to all the kids.

 

[luvsJack]

Wow. Yes, I know you can't sanitize a child. It was a statement describing how grossed out I was.

I've had the flu and I've had staph. I'll take the flu if I had to pick one. I got antivirals for the flu, I almost lost a leg to staph. It's not that hard to spread, either. We had problems at several schools that required shutting the them down or parts of them down to sanitize them because of staph,

I know how germs are spread, but thanks for the lecture . I've had kids, I'm married to a paramedic who was over the communicable disease training for a company, and I have a weak immune system. I go nowhere without sanitizer but we all pick up germs. While most wash their hands before going to the buffet or sitting down to eat, I do it again AFTER going to the buffet and handling menus, trays, etc. because not everyone washes. And, yes I still rub my eyes or touch my mouth subconsciously.

It doesn't matter why the children are at the daycare or preschool. If it's for all the kids and not the individual as you state, they all have the option of not going, the answer some gave the OP was go somewhere else or homeschool; it was her choice to send the child there. Why is the answer different for the other children? You should see they have the same option she does. Would you rather her stay home and collect government aid? People can keep throwing out issues of "that unvaccinated kid will likely put someone in the hospital. Are you ok infecting other kids" to "those parents may have to
work" or whatever but they apply to all of the families. Besides, those scientologist children or medically exempt are no less likely to infect the babies than the OP's child but they are given a pass. It's a guilt trip fear tactic but it applies to all the kids.

I never said that it was preferable to get the flu over staph--I said it was easier to get the flu. I have had two co-workers within the last year that had staph; one was hospitalized. They both got it while at the hospital--one visiting someone, the other in the er with a family member..

Personally I don't think that religious reasons are enough and don't necessarily agree with that exemption. My state only gives medical exemptions and I agree with that--although I didn't realize that until I was looking up our regulations to know if we require the flu vaccine yet (its still strongly recommended to a part of the center's policy).

Medical exemptions cannot be helped and are very different than other exemptions. I really don't see how one could justify not allowing these types of exemptions.

 

[mfd25wife]

I never said that it was preferable to get the flu over staph--I said it was easier to get the flu. I have had two co-workers within the last year that had staph; one was hospitalized. They both got it while at the hospital--one visiting someone, the other in the er with a family member..

Personally I don't think that religious reasons are enough and don't necessarily agree with that exemption. My state only gives medical exemptions and I agree with that--although I didn't realize that until I was looking up our regulations to know if we require the flu vaccine yet (its still strongly recommended to a part of the center's policy).

Medical exemptions cannot be helped and are very different than other exemptions. I really don't see how one could justify not allowing these types of exemptions.

I'm not against it. I just think any parent should be able to opt out. My posts are in reference to "it's not about you and you child. It's for all of them" so some Dan be exempt but not all whose parents are against it.

While I almost lost a leg, my case of staph wasn't as bad as one of the school kids I knew who almost died and was in a children's hospital for months. I only had one surgery. He had multiple surgeries. It was terrible. He got it from the school gym. That is one of the schools that closed until it was sanitized ceiling to floor door to door. There were multiple cases and the bacteria was at the school. I don't remember how it got in multiple schools.

 

[badblackpug]

Not even dabating vaccines and their efficacy, am I the only one seeing that the OP is NOT being forced to vaccinate this child against her will? Her rights are not being violated, her job as parent is not being taken away from her. She still, absolutely, has the right to choose not to vaccinate her child. She just cannot send her to an optional activity if she chooses not to. The OP has plenty of choices. Preschool is not mandated, it is not a right. It is an optional activity.

Say, for instance the child couldn't take ballet lessons without a flu shot. Would everyone still be telling her to lie about a religious belief if she couldn't take ballet? This isn't about anyone's rights or taking away anyone's right to parent as they see fit. This is about choosing what is best for your child and dealing with the consequences, just like in every other situation in parenting.

Either it is better for the child to stay in preschool and receive the shot, and risk a side effect, or it is better that the child not receive the shot and not attend preschool.

I see it as the same argument as posters who argue about taking their kids out of school for a trip. Yes, you are the parent, you absolutely have the right to decide what is right for your child, but in doing so you accept the consequences of that choice. In the case of a trip, it may be that your child's grades suffer, or you are referred to truancy court, or you have to pay more money for your trip, or fight higher crowds, or deal with unpleasant weather. In this case your child may have a reaction to the shot, or may not be able to go to preschool. You make the decision based on what you think is best for your child and accept the possible outcome.

 

[sam_gordon]

Not even dabating vaccines and their efficacy, am I the only one seeing that the OP is NOT being forced to vaccinate this child against her will? Her rights are not being violated, her job as parent is not being taken away from her. She still, absolutely, has the right to choose not to vaccinate her child. She just cannot send her to an optional activity if she chooses not to. The OP has plenty of choices. Preschool is not mandated, it is not a right. It is an optional activity.

Say, for instance the child couldn't take ballet lessons without a flu shot. Would everyone still be telling her to lie about a religious belief if she couldn't take ballet? This isn't about anyone's rights or taking away anyone's right to parent as they see fit. This is about choosing what is best for your child and dealing with the consequences, just like in every other situation in parenting.

Either it is better for the child to stay in preschool and receive the shot, and risk a side effect, or it is better that the child not receive the shot and not attend preschool.

I see it as the same argument as posters who argue about taking their kids out of school for a trip. Yes, you are the parent, you absolutely have the right to decide what is right for your child, but in doing so you accept the consequences of that choice. In the case of a trip, it may be that your child's grades suffer, or you are referred to truancy court, or you have to pay more money for your trip, or fight higher crowds, or deal with unpleasant weather. In this case your child may have a reaction to the shot, or may not be able to go to preschool. You make the decision based on what you think is best for your child and accept the possible outcome.

It's been brought up before but you say it very well also!

 

[mfd25wife]

Not even dabating vaccines and their efficacy, am I the only one seeing that the OP is NOT being forced to vaccinate this child against her will? Her rights are not being violated, her job as parent is not being taken away from her. She still, absolutely, has the right to choose not to vaccinate her child. She just cannot send her to an optional activity if she chooses not to. The OP has plenty of choices. Preschool is not mandated, it is not a right. It is an optional activity.

Say, for instance the child couldn't take ballet lessons without a flu shot. Would everyone still be telling her to lie about a religious belief if she couldn't take ballet? This isn't about anyone's rights or taking away anyone's right to parent as they see fit. This is about choosing what is best for your child and dealing with the consequences, just like in every other situation in parenting.

Either it is better for the child to stay in preschool and receive the shot, and risk a side effect, or it is better that the child not receive the shot and not attend preschool.

I see it as the same argument as posters who argue about taking their kids out of school for a trip. Yes, you are the parent, you absolutely have the right to decide what is right for your child, but in doing so you accept the
consequences of that choice. In the case of a trip, it may be that your child's grades suffer, or you are referred to truancy court, or you have to pay more money for your trip, or fight higher crowds, or deal with unpleasant weather.
In this case your child may have a reaction to the shot, or may not be able to go to preschool. You make the decision based on what you think is best for your child and accept the possible outcome.

OP also didn't ask if we agreed with her view. OP asked if it's possible to get
out of it. . The answer is....yes.

 

[luvmy3]

N.J.S.A. 26:1A  9.1 provides an exemption for pupils from mandatory
immunization if the parent or guardian of the pupil objects thereto in a written
statement signed by the parent or guardian upon the grounds that the proposed
immunization interferes with the free exercise of the pupils religious rights.

You're going to read it your way, I'll read it my way. When I was in law school, and mind you it was over a decade ago and I am not a practicing attorney, I learned that knowingly signing a false statement to circumvent a rule or law is generally fraud, although not a fraud in this case that the authorities have the time or resources to pursue. I'll point out that the structure of the wording and the use of "if..." implies that the aforementioned condition must be met and I'll say that I suspect they wrote the law requiring a written statement because they want the parents/guardians to legally attest to their belief, which in this case the OP does not share. You will likely point out that it doesn't say that the parents actually have to believe what they're saying. I'll say that it's implied that when you make a signed written statement, it is a statement that is assumed to be true. You'll say that they didn't write it that way so it's still OK to lie. Then you'll use all sorts of cute snark and emoticons because you'll grow increasingly frustrated or decide to just toy with me, and I'll snark back because I have a tendency to pick at things that bother me and I'm killing time waiting for a flight and finished both of my books and other work so this is vaguely entertaining to me. We will go around and around, and obviously not change each other's minds, but it's an entertaining intellectual endeavor. Sound about right? C'est la vie!

Sounds pretty spot on

 

[Robbi]

I would have no trouble at all lying for a religious exemption. It is ludicrous and discriminatory that there is not a philosophical exemption. My closely held ethical views are just as important to me as any belief in the supernatural is to someone who is religious.

Anyone else ever wonder which side of the vaccine argument Charles Darwin would be on?




Did I just stir the pot a little more? I really am curious and can see him being on either side.

IMO, he'd be anti vaccine because he believed in both natural selection and survival of the fittest. In other words, if you can't fight off the illness, you die.
Vaccines fight the laws because they throw off nature selecting those individuals capable of surviving, in this case, the flu.

 

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

IMO, he'd be anti vaccine because he believed in both natural selection and survival of the fittest. In other words, if you can't fight off the illness, you die.
Vaccines fight the laws because they throw off nature selecting those individuals capable of surviving, in this case, the flu.

Firstly, it was the economist Herbert Spencer, and not Charles Darwin, who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest," but more importantly, you are vastly misinterpreting the theories of both, as neither Darwin nor Spencer would have endorsed your theory as a preferred method of evolution over the use of intellect to advance and strengthen the species. Put more bluntly, without the herd protection that anti-vaxxers receive, natural selection would weed out those who don't grasp the benefits of taking appropriate and simple steps to prevent fatal diseases.

Consider it this way: natural selection favors those who know enough to avail themselves of all the tools at their disposal over those who do not know how to do so, be it the first creature who figured out how to harness fire or the modern human who realizes that a vaccination will keep them safe from a potentially deadly disease with very little risk.

 

[Robbi]

Firstly, it was the economist Herbert Spencer, and not Charles Darwin, who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest," but more importantly, you are vastly misinterpreting the theories of both, as neither Darwin nor Spencer would have endorsed your theory as a preferred method of evolution over the use of intellect to advance and strengthen the species. Put more bluntly, without the herd protection that anti-vaxxers receive, natural selection would weed out those who don't grasp the benefits of taking appropriate and simple steps to prevent fatal diseases.

Consider it this way: natural selection favors those who know enough to avail themselves of all the tools at their disposal over those who do not know how to do so, be it the first creature who figured out how to harness fire or the modern human who realizes that a vaccination will keep them safe from a potentially deadly disease with very little risk.

I know about Herbert Spencer but Darwin inspired the phrase and is more associated with it. The post I answered asked about Darwin so I used it.

I understand your argument but feel that whether or not a child is vaccinated is a decision that should rest with the parents and not with the government.

 

[mnrose]

I know about Herbert Spencer but Darwin inspired the phrase and is more associated with it. The post I answered asked about Darwin so I used it.

I understand your argument but feel that whether or not a child is vaccinated is a decision that should rest with the parents and not with the government.

Of course it is the decision of the parents. My issue is deciding for all other parents that it's a "stupid" rule and should simply be ignored or is something one can "lie" about in order to circumvent. The parents are absolutely able to decide not to vaccinate. But, then they also need to accept the consequences of that decision...much as I do when I decide, for example, that my child shouldn't ride the bus because I don't like the culture of the bus. I can choose to do that, but then must accept that it means either my kids will walk to school or I will drive them. I DON'T have the right to insist that the district provide taxi service for my kids.

Each decision we make as parents involves choices. Make one, and live with the consequences. Don't insist that your child is "special" and deserves to be able to ignore the rule AND get the benefits ordinarily conferred upon those who comply with the rule.

 

[kaytieeldr]

There are risks to every vaccine and IMO I think the tiny risk of catching a virus the body is designed to fight off (we have no health issues here) is a better choice than the maybe tiny, maybe not so tiny risk of taking a vaccine we don't need just b/c 'someone' decided it was necessary to survive.

I don't want the vaccine, I don't need it. There are chemicals in there and I am not taking them EVERY YEAR without a good reason.

The most trustworthy/neutral source I could find on this is a 2010 USA Today article on flu myths http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/medical/coldflu/2010-11-15-myths-flu_N.htm

Myth 5: Flu shots contain methyl mercury and other toxic chemicals.

Although there's no evidence that the ethyl mercury-based preservative thimerosal causes harm, vaccine makers responded to public concerns in 2001 and stopped using it in most vaccines.

Neither flu shots in individual-dose containers or the FluMist nasal spray contain thimerosal. Flu vaccine kept in multi-dose vials do use thimerosal as a preservative, to prevent the growth of fungus or other potentially dangerous germs, Bergen says. Patients can ask for the thimerosal-free versions.

But scientists note that all mercury is not the same.

Thimerosal contains ethyl mercury, which has not been shown to cause harm, rather than methyl mercury, the type that can cause brain damage, Offit says. While most laypeople don't pay attention to such differences, they're important. Consider the huge difference between ethyl alcohol — or drinking alcohol, found in wine and beer — and methyl alcohol, or wood alcohol, which can cause blindness.

There's also no data to prove that thimerosal causes autism, Offit says. In fact, seven studies now refute that idea.

Gunter notes that flu shots don't use aluminum, which is used in other vaccines as an "adjuvant" to stimulate a stronger immune response.

While many medications and consumer products have trace levels of chemicals, so do our bodies, Offit says. Breast milk has more mercury contamination than vaccines. So does infant formula. But vaccines, like breast milk, play a vital role in keeping infants healthy.

"If you have zero tolerance for mercury, you have to move to another planet," Offit says. "We all have mercury and formaldehyde and aluminum in our bodies. Vaccines don't add to what we normally encounter every day."

 

[kaytieeldr]

N.J.S.A. 26:1A  9.1 provides an exemption for pupils from mandatory
immunization if the parent or guardian of the pupil objects thereto in a written
statement signed by the parent or guardian upon the grounds that the proposed
immunization interferes with the free exercise of the pupils religious rights.

You're going to read it your way, I'll read it my way. When I was in law school, and mind you it was over a decade ago and I am not a practicing attorney, I learned that knowingly signing a false statement to circumvent a rule or law is generally fraud, although not a fraud in this case that the authorities have the time or resources to pursue. I'll point out that the structure of the wording and the use of "if..." implies that the aforementioned condition must be met and I'll say that I suspect they wrote the law requiring a written statement because they want the parents/guardians to legally attest to their belief, which in this case the OP does not share. You will likely point out that it doesn't say that the parents actually have to believe what they're saying. I'll say that it's implied that when you make a signed written statement, it is a statement that is assumed to be true. You'll say that they didn't write it that way so it's still OK to lie. Then you'll use all sorts of cute snark and emoticons because you'll grow increasingly frustrated or decide to just toy with me, and I'll snark back because I have a tendency to pick at things that bother me and I'm killing time waiting for a flight and finished both of my books and other work so this is vaguely entertaining to me. We will go around and around, and obviously not change each other's minds, but it's an entertaining intellectual endeavor. Sound about right? C'est la vie!

I'm impressed! !

 

[jahber]

Even if you get the flu vaccine, you can still get the flu. All depends on which strain they guessed would be prevalent the next year.

In fact, my children and I came down with a violent case of the exact strain we were "immunized" against. The nurse was shocked when she saw the results of the strain test. The thing is, we ended up with the flu AGAIN the next year after the shot. And I'm talking bad enough to go to the doctor, although they didn't test that time because it was so obvious we had the flu (and maybe didn't want to report another case of flu after a vaccine?). So, we don't get the vaccine anymore.

We homeschool anyway, so we limit out exposure to the outside world when we are sick. I don't accept many of the requirements Florida places on public-schooled children (and parents), so I made a choice not to place myself under their authority. I would argue it comes down to the same decision for the OP. I wouldn't lie, but that's me. If you want to use their schools, you have to abide by their rules.

And yes, I vaccinate for diseases where the vaccines have been proven to work. The flu vaccine, alas, has not. But some people prefer to ignore that and assume that if it's a vaccine, it MUST be for the common good.